Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Australia

2013-08-24T18:20:50Z

Spotsbunch: /* History */

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Kevin Rudd
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast facing [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney Harbour Bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

Water is somewhat scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]]. Contrary to that, young earth creation scientists assert that the entire subset animals that are all the Earth's species of kangaroos, wallabies and orher similar creatures travelled together to Australia following the Great Flood. It is not known whether they communicated the idea amongst themselves or all went the same way by chance.

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.

According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[Formula One]], [[V8 Supercars]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen at betting on horse races, with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states and new teams from each have seen an increase in interest.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

====Gun control====
In response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed (23 wounded) buy a gunman, Australia introduced strict gun control laws. Due to bipartisan support the laws were quickly passed and a "gun buy-back" scheme was imposed, whereby gun owners were forced to surrender their guns to the government in exchange for monetary compensation. As there is little to no "gun culture" in Australia, these measures were widely accepted and even welcomed. Since 1997 both the homicide rate and gun death rate in Australia have fallen dramatically.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. In June 2013, [[Julia Gillard]] became the first female Prime Minister after she defeated [[Kevin Rudd]] in a partyroom leadership challenge.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gillard ousts Rudd in bloodless coup |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935500.htm|accessdate=24 June 2010|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=24 June 2010}}</ref>

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory. The other state governments see the Liberal Party in control. The Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd.

Conservative Queensland politician and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectively represented by the major parties. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Quentin Bryce
*Prime Minister--Kevin Rudd
*Deputy Prime Minister--Anthony Albinese
*Treasurer--Wayne Swan
*Foreign Minister--Bob Carr
*Defense Minister--Bob Katter
*Trade Minister--Craig Emerson

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living there. The great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Australia

2013-08-24T18:12:26Z

Spotsbunch: /* Parliamentary political parties */

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Kevin Rudd
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast facing [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney Harbour Bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

Water is somewhat scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]]. Contrary to that, young earth creation scientists assert that the entire subset animals that are all the Earth's species of kangaroos, wallabies and orher similar creatures travelled together to Australia following the Great Flood. It is not known whether they communicated the idea amongst themselves or all went the same way by chance.

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.

According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[Formula One]], [[V8 Supercars]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen at betting on horse races, with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states and new teams from each have seen an increase in interest.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

====Gun control====
In response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed (23 wounded) buy a gunman, Australia introduced strict gun control laws. Due to bipartisan support the laws were quickly passed and a "gun buy-back" scheme was imposed, whereby gun owners were forced to surrender their guns to the government in exchange for monetary compensation. As there is little to no "gun culture" in Australia, these measures were widely accepted and even welcomed. Since 1997 both the homicide rate and gun death rate in Australia have fallen dramatically.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. In June 2013, [[Julia Gillard]] became the first female Prime Minister after she defeated [[Kevin Rudd]] in a partyroom leadership challenge.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gillard ousts Rudd in bloodless coup |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935500.htm|accessdate=24 June 2010|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=24 June 2010}}</ref>

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory. The other state governments see the Liberal Party in control. The Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd.

Conservative Queensland politician and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectively represented by the major parties. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Quentin Bryce
*Prime Minister--Kevin Rudd
*Deputy Prime Minister--Anthony Albinese
*Treasurer--Wayne Swan
*Foreign Minister--Bob Carr
*Defense Minister--Bob Katter
*Trade Minister--Craig Emerson

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living their. he great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Australia

2013-08-24T18:08:20Z

Spotsbunch: /* Government */

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Kevin Rudd
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast facing [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney Harbour Bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

Water is somewhat scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]]. Contrary to that, young earth creation scientists assert that the entire subset animals that are all the Earth's species of kangaroos, wallabies and orher similar creatures travelled together to Australia following the Great Flood. It is not known whether they communicated the idea amongst themselves or all went the same way by chance.

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.

According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[Formula One]], [[V8 Supercars]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen at betting on horse races, with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states and new teams from each have seen an increase in interest.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

====Gun control====
In response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed (23 wounded) buy a gunman, Australia introduced strict gun control laws. Due to bipartisan support the laws were quickly passed and a "gun buy-back" scheme was imposed, whereby gun owners were forced to surrender their guns to the government in exchange for monetary compensation. As there is little to no "gun culture" in Australia, these measures were widely accepted and even welcomed. Since 1997 both the homicide rate and gun death rate in Australia have fallen dramatically.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. In June 2013, [[Julia Gillard]] became the first female Prime Minister after she defeated [[Kevin Rudd]] in a partyroom leadership challenge.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gillard ousts Rudd in bloodless coup |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935500.htm|accessdate=24 June 2010|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=24 June 2010}}</ref>

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory. The other state governments see the Liberal Party in control. The Prime Minister is Kevin Rudd.

Conservative Queensland polititian and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectivly represented by the major partys. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Quentin Bryce
*Prime Minister--Kevin Rudd
*Deputy Prime Minister--Anthony Albinese
*Treasurer--Wayne Swan
*Foreign Minister--Bob Carr
*Defense Minister--Bob Katter
*Trade Minister--Craig Emerson

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living their. he great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Christopher Columbus

2013-07-15T20:38:43Z

Spotsbunch: /* Establishment of Slavery */

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus]]
'''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer hired by Spain to reach Asia in 1491; instead he discovered a continent, and in four voyages explored the [[West Indies]] from 1492 to 1502. His discovery resulted in Europeans exploring and settling the Americas, and Columbus became both a symbol of the new world and an iconic hero for the age of exploration.

As conservative historian Wilcomb Washburn explains, if Columbus had not discovered the New World, the process of European discovery might have been very different. Rather than standing as a symbol of inexorable forces, Columbus is better seen as a representative of the spirit of inquiry, Christian religious zeal, and the notable achievements of Western Civilization.<ref> Wilcomb E. Washburn, "Columbus: Agent Of The Inevitable?" ''Continuity'' 1992 (16): 57-63. 0277-1446 </ref>

==Early career==
Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristobal Colon in Spanish) was born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. His father was a weaver, tavern keeper, and political appointee. Christopher was uneducated; he learned to read and write as an adult. Then he read widely. Genoa was a great seaport for the Mediterranean. He became a sailor and traveled widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Sometime in the mid-1470s, he settled in Portugal, joining the colony of Italian merchants in Lisbon, a cosmopolitan city at the center of Portuguese maritime activity in the Atlantic. He married into a prominent family in Lisbon, but his wife died soon after their son, Diego, was born in 1480. Columbus was a master mariner and adventurer, and a devout Catholic who saw religious goals in converting the Asians. He now had connections to the Portuguese court, important ties to Madeira and Porto Santo islands, and at least some wealth.

For centuries, Asia's lucrative commodities, such as spices, had brought European traders overland. That route was now closed and by the 1480s Portugal took the lead in opening ocean routes to Asia, sailing south around Africa into the Indian Ocean, using superb navigational aids they had invented, maps they kept secret, and excellent ships. products directly.

Hearing many tales of legendary Atlantic voyages and rumors of land to the west of Madeira and the Azores, he studied books and maps. Columbus became convinced that Asia could be reached by sailing due west from Europe. Columbus's ideas about the size of the world and a westward route to Asia probably evolved piecemeal. His conjectures were based on discoveries of islands in the Atlantic (the Canaries, the Azores, the Cape Verdes, the Madeiras), rumors of additional islands, findings of unusual plant material and even human bodies drifting in from the western ocean, and by wide reading in academic geography, including ''Imago mundi'' (Image of the World) by the French theologian Pierre d' Ailly and the ''Geographia'' the ancient scientist Ptolemy.<ref>The people Columbus dealt with all knew the earth was round.</ref>
[[File:PUERTO de Palos.jpg|thumb|left|Port of Palos in Spain; painting by Evaristo Domínguez.]]
He accepted Marco Polo's erroneous location for Japan-- as 1,500 miles east of China--and Ptolemy's underestimation of the circumference of the Earth. Therefore, he concluded, Japan was about 3,000 miles to the west of Portugal--which was barely within the extreme range of existing ships. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but he was rejected. The Portuguese believed it was too far for their ships.

In 1485 Columbus went to Spain, where he spent seven years trying to get support from Queen [[Isabella I]] of Castile. She favored his cause and provided a salary. Once Spain was unified in 1492, Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand of Aragon were ready to fund a major voyage. The moderate cost would be offset by spectacular returns, they figured. They promised to grant Columbus noble status and the titles of admiral, viceroy, and governor-general for any islands or mainland areas he discovered. The office of admiral would give Columbus the right to judge disputes that arose in commercial matters, that of viceroy would make him the personal representative of the monarch, and that of governor-general would enable him to act as supreme civil and military authority.

==First Voyage==
Isabella furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, from the port of Palos, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting mutiny.

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|250px|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the native Arawaks to be friendly and wrote such in his diary: "They offered to share with anyone, and when you ask for something, they never say no."

They found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Further establishing the kindness of the Arawaks, Columbus noted that the they were so kind, that after the shipwreck, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his cargo, and were so honest that not one thing was missing. Columbus saw the shipwreck as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onward to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

[[File:News1492.jpg|thumb|400px|News of Columbus' discovery spread across Europe with the republication of his Letter of March, 1493]]

==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards. On his second voyage Columbus was able to sail back exactly to the same place as on his first voyage, despite poor navigating techniques of the time period. Some attribute this fact to divine providence.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|Modern replica of the ''Santa Maria'']]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. The monarchs gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Establishment of Slavery==
Following his arrival, Columbus established ruthless slavery, including sexual slavery, of the natives. He wrote to a friend in 1500: "A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand." His enslavement of the natives in his gold mines was so brutal that within 2 years, 125,000 natives (half the population) were dead. Columbus himself wrote: "We shall take you and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault."

Bartolome de las Casas, a Catholic priest wrote, in the "History of the Indies" published in 1875, "... Slaves were the primary source of income for the Admiral (Columbus) with that income he intended to repay the money the Kings were spending in support of Spaniards on the Island. They provide profit and income to the Kings. (The Spaniards were driven by) insatiable greed ... killing, terrorizing, afflicting, and torturing the native peoples ... with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty."

Also documenting Columbus' cruel legacy, Father Fray Antonio de Montesino, a Dominican preacher, in December 1511 said this in a sermon that implicated Christopher Columbus and the colonists in the genocide of the native peoples: "Tell me by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt quietly and peacefully on their own lands? Wars in which you have destroyed such an infinite number of them by homicides and slaughters never heard of before..."

Local inhabitants who resisted Columbus and his crew had their ears or noses cut off, were mauled by attack dogs, skewered with pikes and shot. Reprisals were so severe that many of the natives committed mass suicide and women began practicing abortions in order not to leave children enslaved. The population of Haiti at the time of Columbus's arrival was between 1.5 million and 3 million. Sixty years later, every single native had been murdered.

Elsewhere in his book "History of the Indies," De las Cases detailed the reasons for the population decrease: "Thus husbands and wives were together only once every eight or ten months and when they met they were so exhausted and depressed on both sides. . . they ceased to procreate. As for the newly born, they died early because their mothers, overworked and famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason, while I was in Cuba, 7000 children died in three months. Some mothers even drowned their babies from sheer desperation.... In this way, husbands died in the mines, wives died at work, and children died from lack of milk . . . and in a short time this land which was so great, so powerful and fertile ... was depopulated.... My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write...."

For his cruelty, Christopher Columbus and his brothers were sent back to Spain (on August 23, 1500) in chains by Spanish Governor Francesco de Bobadilla for mistreating Natives in the section of Hispaniola now known as Haiti. They were imprisoned for six weeks in Spain but King Ferdinand released them, seizing their profits from enslavement of the natives.

==Death==
[[Image:Rabida.jpg|thumb|Santa María de la Rábida, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, Spain.]]
Columbus died in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. The notion that Columbus died in poverty and relative anonymity is a myth. Although not wealthy, he was living comfortably (economically speaking). Physically, he was in pain from severe arthritis.

It is also a myth that Columbus proved that the world was round. Europeans had known for centuries that the world was round. Columbus's disagreement with the experts was that he thought that the Earth was much smaller, and that he had enough supplies to sail to India.

==The Memory of Columbus==
Columbus has remained since the quest for independence a malleable and durable American symbol. Although ignored during most of the colonial period, he was, during the 1760s-1890s, interpreted and reinterpreted to fit our national character and used to mold a collective identity. This progress can be traced over three periods: as Columbia (an allegorical figure symbolizing liberty); as Columbus (an individual masculine explorer who sanctioned [[Manifest Destiny]]); and as Columbianism, a late-19th-century patriotic symbol involving cultural and political hegemony and various ethnic and religious identities. During this evolution of "discovering" Columbus, a significant amount of material culture surfaced in American art, monuments, coinage, and in various civic events. This led to a multiple set of uses of Columbus as a model or official icon by various organizations to help shape their identities. The discovery of Columbus also grew as new methods of communication and the development of various media in the visual arts replaced the oral tradition and elementary school prose of the 18th century. This adaption of Columbus as a national symbol created conflicting contexts for many, such as Protestants ignoring Columbus's Catholicism. All three periods signify steps in the nation's search for self-identity.<ref> Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR] </Ref>
[[File:Cordero Colon ante los reyes catolicos.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus at the court of the Spanish Catholic Kings by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
In the 19th century the works of historians [[Washington Irving]], [[George Bancroft]], and [[William Prescott]] created the scholarly foundations for American celebration of Columbus's achievements. Irving created a highly romantic description of Columbus's landing in ''A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus'' (1828). 19th century American painters and graphic artists conjured up romantic images to match those found in the book. The image portrayed in Irving's book and by the artists shows Columbus finding a sparsely populated virgin land inhabited by lightly clothed "savages" to whom he introduced a "superior" culture and the blessings of Christianity. The mythical image also claims that Columbus planted the seeds of future American economic prosperity.

Americans celebrated Columbus's discovery of the New World and built numerous monuments to him in the late 19th century. The city of Columbus, Ohio was established in 1812. In addition, cities and towns, streets and health facilities, libraries, universities, schools, and in modern times sport teams bearing his name are symbols of his American stature. [[Columbus Day]], is a national holiday in the United States, proclaimed so in 1937 by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], primarily at the behest of [[Catholic]]s and the fast growing [[Italian]] immigrant community who wanted a national holiday of celebration.

By the quincentenary celebration of his discovery in 1992, Columbus stood accused of genocide and ecocide. Columbus Day became controversial in the 1970s, as a matter of white guilt regarding the mistreatment of native Americans. The main accuser was Colorado professor [[Ward Churchill]] (who was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct and falsifying history); he compared Columbus to Nazi Holocaust sponsor [[Heinrich Himmler]], pointing to the genocidal outcome of Columbus's brutal practices in the Caribbean.

Columbus did return to Spain with a number of Indian slaves, and that slave labor was used in his quest for gold. Native populations died out primarily because of exposure to new Old World diseases.<ref>http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/holiday-history History of Columbus Day</ref>

Leftist protesters of the 1992 quincentennial celebrations of frequently used the term "genocide" to describe European treatment of the Indians, but they never defined genocide or provided sound evidence that Europeans practiced genocide. Historians should recognize the legitimate emotional source of these complaints, but counsel against the use of moral blackmail by groups who have something to gain from characterizing European treatment of Indians as genocidal. Historians should work to destroy "maleficent myths" about the past and expose complex origins of "current fortunes and misfortunes" without holding the descendants of those who wronged other peoples accountable for the deeds of their ancestors.<ref>James Axtell, "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370 </ref>

Besides the District of Columbia, and the province of British Columbia (Canada), numerous cities are named after Columbus, notably in Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

==Further reading==
* Bedini Silvio A., ed. ''Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia'' (1991); 787pp articles by 350 scholars; a major resource
** Bedini Silvio A. '' Christopher Columbus and the Age of Exploration'' (1998); 824pp encyclopedia
* Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. ''Columbus: And the Conquest of the Impossible'' (2nd ed. 2001), 128pp; good, short, scholarly
* Morison, Samuel Eliot. '' Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1942), 691pp; the best biography; written by an eminent conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Ocean-Sea-Christopher-Columbus/dp/0316584789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243893419&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Phillips, Carla Rahn. ''The Worlds of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1993) 340 pages, excellent popular biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/european-history/europe-1400-1789/christopher-columbus.jsp online books about Columbus]
* Taviani, Paolo Emilio. ''Columbus, The Great Adventure: His Life, His Times, and His Voyages'' (1991), by the leading Italian expert
* Watts, Pauline Moffitt. "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies'". ''American Historical Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 73-102; emphasizes complex religious motivations [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860749 in JSTOR]
* Wilford, John Noble. ''The Mysterious History of Columbus: An Exploration of the Man, the Myth, the Legacy'' (1991), the best popular biography; very well written

===Historiography===
* Axtell, James. "Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995." ''William And Mary Quarterly'' 1995 52(4): 649-696. [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/rev/AXTELL-1.HTML online edition]; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2947042 also in JSTOR], leading scholar reviews the major publications
* Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370
* Bushman, Claudia L. ''America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero.'' (1992). 217 pp.
* Davidson, Miles H. ''Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined.'' (1997). 609 pp.
* Sale, Kirkpatrick. ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.'' (1990). 453 pp. nasty attack from the Left
* Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR]
* Summerhill, Stephen J. and John Alexander Williams. ''Sinking Columbus: Contested History, Cultural Politics, and Mythmaking during the Quincentenary.'' (2000). 219 pp.
* [http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/columbus/print.html additional bibliography]

== See also ==

*[[Ethnic Groups Gallery]]

==External links==
* [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/ extensive collection of articles about Columbus]
*[http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php from Mariner's Museum]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Age of Exploration]]
[[Category:Italian People]]

Christopher Columbus

2013-07-15T20:29:10Z

Spotsbunch: /* Death */

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus]]
'''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer hired by Spain to reach Asia in 1491; instead he discovered a continent, and in four voyages explored the [[West Indies]] from 1492 to 1502. His discovery resulted in Europeans exploring and settling the Americas, and Columbus became both a symbol of the new world and an iconic hero for the age of exploration.

As conservative historian Wilcomb Washburn explains, if Columbus had not discovered the New World, the process of European discovery might have been very different. Rather than standing as a symbol of inexorable forces, Columbus is better seen as a representative of the spirit of inquiry, Christian religious zeal, and the notable achievements of Western Civilization.<ref> Wilcomb E. Washburn, "Columbus: Agent Of The Inevitable?" ''Continuity'' 1992 (16): 57-63. 0277-1446 </ref>

==Early career==
Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristobal Colon in Spanish) was born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. His father was a weaver, tavern keeper, and political appointee. Christopher was uneducated; he learned to read and write as an adult. Then he read widely. Genoa was a great seaport for the Mediterranean. He became a sailor and traveled widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Sometime in the mid-1470s, he settled in Portugal, joining the colony of Italian merchants in Lisbon, a cosmopolitan city at the center of Portuguese maritime activity in the Atlantic. He married into a prominent family in Lisbon, but his wife died soon after their son, Diego, was born in 1480. Columbus was a master mariner and adventurer, and a devout Catholic who saw religious goals in converting the Asians. He now had connections to the Portuguese court, important ties to Madeira and Porto Santo islands, and at least some wealth.

For centuries, Asia's lucrative commodities, such as spices, had brought European traders overland. That route was now closed and by the 1480s Portugal took the lead in opening ocean routes to Asia, sailing south around Africa into the Indian Ocean, using superb navigational aids they had invented, maps they kept secret, and excellent ships. products directly.

Hearing many tales of legendary Atlantic voyages and rumors of land to the west of Madeira and the Azores, he studied books and maps. Columbus became convinced that Asia could be reached by sailing due west from Europe. Columbus's ideas about the size of the world and a westward route to Asia probably evolved piecemeal. His conjectures were based on discoveries of islands in the Atlantic (the Canaries, the Azores, the Cape Verdes, the Madeiras), rumors of additional islands, findings of unusual plant material and even human bodies drifting in from the western ocean, and by wide reading in academic geography, including ''Imago mundi'' (Image of the World) by the French theologian Pierre d' Ailly and the ''Geographia'' the ancient scientist Ptolemy.<ref>The people Columbus dealt with all knew the earth was round.</ref>
[[File:PUERTO de Palos.jpg|thumb|left|Port of Palos in Spain; painting by Evaristo Domínguez.]]
He accepted Marco Polo's erroneous location for Japan-- as 1,500 miles east of China--and Ptolemy's underestimation of the circumference of the Earth. Therefore, he concluded, Japan was about 3,000 miles to the west of Portugal--which was barely within the extreme range of existing ships. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but he was rejected. The Portuguese believed it was too far for their ships.

In 1485 Columbus went to Spain, where he spent seven years trying to get support from Queen [[Isabella I]] of Castile. She favored his cause and provided a salary. Once Spain was unified in 1492, Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand of Aragon were ready to fund a major voyage. The moderate cost would be offset by spectacular returns, they figured. They promised to grant Columbus noble status and the titles of admiral, viceroy, and governor-general for any islands or mainland areas he discovered. The office of admiral would give Columbus the right to judge disputes that arose in commercial matters, that of viceroy would make him the personal representative of the monarch, and that of governor-general would enable him to act as supreme civil and military authority.

==First Voyage==
Isabella furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, from the port of Palos, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting mutiny.

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|250px|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the native Arawaks to be friendly and wrote such in his diary: "They offered to share with anyone, and when you ask for something, they never say no."

They found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Further establishing the kindness of the Arawaks, Columbus noted that the they were so kind, that after the shipwreck, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his cargo, and were so honest that not one thing was missing. Columbus saw the shipwreck as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onward to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

[[File:News1492.jpg|thumb|400px|News of Columbus' discovery spread across Europe with the republication of his Letter of March, 1493]]

==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards. On his second voyage Columbus was able to sail back exactly to the same place as on his first voyage, despite poor navigating techniques of the time period. Some attribute this fact to divine providence.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|Modern replica of the ''Santa Maria'']]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. The monarchs gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Establishment of Slavery==
Following his arrival, Columbus established ruthless slavery, including sexual slavery, of the natives. He wrote to a friend in 1500: "A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand." His enslavement of the natives in his gold mines was so brutal that within 2 years, 125,000 natives (half the population) were dead. Columbus himself wrote: "We shall take you and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault."

Bartolome de las Casas, a Catholic priest wrote, in the "History of the Indies" published in 1875, "... Slaves were the primary source of income for the Admiral (Columbus) with that income he intended to repay the money the Kings were spending in support of Spaniards on the Island. They provide profit and income to the Kings. (The Spaniards were driven by) insatiable greed ... killing, terrorizing, afflicting, and torturing the native peoples ... with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty."

Also documenting Columbus' cruel legacy, Father Fray Antonio de Montesino, a Dominican preacher, in December 1511 said this in a sermon that implicated Christopher Columbus and the colonists in the genocide of the native peoples: "Tell me by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt quietly and peacefully on their own lands? Wars in which you have destroyed such an infinite number of them by homicides and slaughters never heard of before..."

Local inhabitants who resisted Columbus and his crew had their ears or noses cut off, were mauled by attack dogs, skewered with pikes and shot. Reprisals were so severe that many of the natives committed mass suicide and women began practicing abortions in order not to leave children enslaved. The population of Haiti at the time of Columbus's arrival was between 1.5 million and 3 million. Sixty years later, every single native had been murdered.

For his cruelty, Christopher Columbus and his brothers were sent back to Spain (on August 23, 1500) in chains by Spanish Governor Francesco de Bobadilla for mistreating Natives in the section of Hispaniola now known as Haiti. When they arrived in Spain, however, they were immediately released and graciously received at the royal court.

==Death==
[[Image:Rabida.jpg|thumb|Santa María de la Rábida, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, Spain.]]
Columbus died in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. The notion that Columbus died in poverty and relative anonymity is a myth. Although not wealthy, he was living comfortably (economically speaking). Physically, he was in pain from severe arthritis.

It is also a myth that Columbus proved that the world was round. Europeans had known for centuries that the world was round. Columbus's disagreement with the experts was that he thought that the Earth was much smaller, and that he had enough supplies to sail to India.

==The Memory of Columbus==
Columbus has remained since the quest for independence a malleable and durable American symbol. Although ignored during most of the colonial period, he was, during the 1760s-1890s, interpreted and reinterpreted to fit our national character and used to mold a collective identity. This progress can be traced over three periods: as Columbia (an allegorical figure symbolizing liberty); as Columbus (an individual masculine explorer who sanctioned [[Manifest Destiny]]); and as Columbianism, a late-19th-century patriotic symbol involving cultural and political hegemony and various ethnic and religious identities. During this evolution of "discovering" Columbus, a significant amount of material culture surfaced in American art, monuments, coinage, and in various civic events. This led to a multiple set of uses of Columbus as a model or official icon by various organizations to help shape their identities. The discovery of Columbus also grew as new methods of communication and the development of various media in the visual arts replaced the oral tradition and elementary school prose of the 18th century. This adaption of Columbus as a national symbol created conflicting contexts for many, such as Protestants ignoring Columbus's Catholicism. All three periods signify steps in the nation's search for self-identity.<ref> Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR] </Ref>
[[File:Cordero Colon ante los reyes catolicos.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus at the court of the Spanish Catholic Kings by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
In the 19th century the works of historians [[Washington Irving]], [[George Bancroft]], and [[William Prescott]] created the scholarly foundations for American celebration of Columbus's achievements. Irving created a highly romantic description of Columbus's landing in ''A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus'' (1828). 19th century American painters and graphic artists conjured up romantic images to match those found in the book. The image portrayed in Irving's book and by the artists shows Columbus finding a sparsely populated virgin land inhabited by lightly clothed "savages" to whom he introduced a "superior" culture and the blessings of Christianity. The mythical image also claims that Columbus planted the seeds of future American economic prosperity.

Americans celebrated Columbus's discovery of the New World and built numerous monuments to him in the late 19th century. The city of Columbus, Ohio was established in 1812. In addition, cities and towns, streets and health facilities, libraries, universities, schools, and in modern times sport teams bearing his name are symbols of his American stature. [[Columbus Day]], is a national holiday in the United States, proclaimed so in 1937 by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], primarily at the behest of [[Catholic]]s and the fast growing [[Italian]] immigrant community who wanted a national holiday of celebration.

By the quincentenary celebration of his discovery in 1992, Columbus stood accused of genocide and ecocide. Columbus Day became controversial in the 1970s, as a matter of white guilt regarding the mistreatment of native Americans. The main accuser was Colorado professor [[Ward Churchill]] (who was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct and falsifying history); he compared Columbus to Nazi Holocaust sponsor [[Heinrich Himmler]], pointing to the genocidal outcome of Columbus's brutal practices in the Caribbean.

Columbus did return to Spain with a number of Indian slaves, and that slave labor was used in his quest for gold. Native populations died out primarily because of exposure to new Old World diseases.<ref>http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/holiday-history History of Columbus Day</ref>

Leftist protesters of the 1992 quincentennial celebrations of frequently used the term "genocide" to describe European treatment of the Indians, but they never defined genocide or provided sound evidence that Europeans practiced genocide. Historians should recognize the legitimate emotional source of these complaints, but counsel against the use of moral blackmail by groups who have something to gain from characterizing European treatment of Indians as genocidal. Historians should work to destroy "maleficent myths" about the past and expose complex origins of "current fortunes and misfortunes" without holding the descendants of those who wronged other peoples accountable for the deeds of their ancestors.<ref>James Axtell, "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370 </ref>

Besides the District of Columbia, and the province of British Columbia (Canada), numerous cities are named after Columbus, notably in Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

==Further reading==
* Bedini Silvio A., ed. ''Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia'' (1991); 787pp articles by 350 scholars; a major resource
** Bedini Silvio A. '' Christopher Columbus and the Age of Exploration'' (1998); 824pp encyclopedia
* Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. ''Columbus: And the Conquest of the Impossible'' (2nd ed. 2001), 128pp; good, short, scholarly
* Morison, Samuel Eliot. '' Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1942), 691pp; the best biography; written by an eminent conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Ocean-Sea-Christopher-Columbus/dp/0316584789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243893419&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Phillips, Carla Rahn. ''The Worlds of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1993) 340 pages, excellent popular biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/european-history/europe-1400-1789/christopher-columbus.jsp online books about Columbus]
* Taviani, Paolo Emilio. ''Columbus, The Great Adventure: His Life, His Times, and His Voyages'' (1991), by the leading Italian expert
* Watts, Pauline Moffitt. "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies'". ''American Historical Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 73-102; emphasizes complex religious motivations [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860749 in JSTOR]
* Wilford, John Noble. ''The Mysterious History of Columbus: An Exploration of the Man, the Myth, the Legacy'' (1991), the best popular biography; very well written

===Historiography===
* Axtell, James. "Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995." ''William And Mary Quarterly'' 1995 52(4): 649-696. [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/rev/AXTELL-1.HTML online edition]; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2947042 also in JSTOR], leading scholar reviews the major publications
* Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370
* Bushman, Claudia L. ''America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero.'' (1992). 217 pp.
* Davidson, Miles H. ''Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined.'' (1997). 609 pp.
* Sale, Kirkpatrick. ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.'' (1990). 453 pp. nasty attack from the Left
* Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR]
* Summerhill, Stephen J. and John Alexander Williams. ''Sinking Columbus: Contested History, Cultural Politics, and Mythmaking during the Quincentenary.'' (2000). 219 pp.
* [http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/columbus/print.html additional bibliography]

== See also ==

*[[Ethnic Groups Gallery]]

==External links==
* [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/ extensive collection of articles about Columbus]
*[http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php from Mariner's Museum]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Age of Exploration]]
[[Category:Italian People]]

Christopher Columbus

2013-07-12T04:23:19Z

Spotsbunch: /* Death */

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus]]
'''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer hired by Spain to reach Asia in 1491; instead he discovered a continent, and in four voyages explored the [[West Indies]] from 1492 to 1502. His discovery resulted in Europeans exploring and settling the Americas, and Columbus became both a symbol of the new world and an iconic hero for the age of exploration.

As conservative historian Wilcomb Washburn explains, if Columbus had not discovered the New World, the process of European discovery might have been very different. Rather than standing as a symbol of inexorable forces, Columbus is better seen as a representative of the spirit of inquiry, Christian religious zeal, and the notable achievements of Western Civilization.<ref> Wilcomb E. Washburn, "Columbus: Agent Of The Inevitable?" ''Continuity'' 1992 (16): 57-63. 0277-1446 </ref>

==Early career==
Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristobal Colon in Spanish) was born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. His father was a weaver, tavern keeper, and political appointee. Christopher was uneducated; he learned to read and write as an adult. Then he read widely. Genoa was a great seaport for the Mediterranean. He became a sailor and traveled widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Sometime in the mid-1470s, he settled in Portugal, joining the colony of Italian merchants in Lisbon, a cosmopolitan city at the center of Portuguese maritime activity in the Atlantic. He married into a prominent family in Lisbon, but his wife died soon after their son, Diego, was born in 1480. Columbus was a master mariner and adventurer, and a devout Catholic who saw religious goals in converting the Asians. He now had connections to the Portuguese court, important ties to Madeira and Porto Santo islands, and at least some wealth.

For centuries, Asia's lucrative commodities, such as spices, had brought European traders overland. That route was now closed and by the 1480s Portugal took the lead in opening ocean routes to Asia, sailing south around Africa into the Indian Ocean, using superb navigational aids they had invented, maps they kept secret, and excellent ships. products directly.

Hearing many tales of legendary Atlantic voyages and rumors of land to the west of Madeira and the Azores, he studied books and maps. Columbus became convinced that Asia could be reached by sailing due west from Europe. Columbus's ideas about the size of the world and a westward route to Asia probably evolved piecemeal. His conjectures were based on discoveries of islands in the Atlantic (the Canaries, the Azores, the Cape Verdes, the Madeiras), rumors of additional islands, findings of unusual plant material and even human bodies drifting in from the western ocean, and by wide reading in academic geography, including ''Imago mundi'' (Image of the World) by the French theologian Pierre d' Ailly and the ''Geographia'' the ancient scientist Ptolemy.<ref>The people Columbus dealt with all knew the earth was round.</ref>
[[File:PUERTO de Palos.jpg|thumb|left|Port of Palos in Spain; painting by Evaristo Domínguez.]]
He accepted Marco Polo's erroneous location for Japan-- as 1,500 miles east of China--and Ptolemy's underestimation of the circumference of the Earth. Therefore, he concluded, Japan was about 3,000 miles to the west of Portugal--which was barely within the extreme range of existing ships. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but he was rejected. The Portuguese believed it was too far for their ships.

In 1485 Columbus went to Spain, where he spent seven years trying to get support from Queen [[Isabella I]] of Castile. She favored his cause and provided a salary. Once Spain was unified in 1492, Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand of Aragon were ready to fund a major voyage. The moderate cost would be offset by spectacular returns, they figured. They promised to grant Columbus noble status and the titles of admiral, viceroy, and governor-general for any islands or mainland areas he discovered. The office of admiral would give Columbus the right to judge disputes that arose in commercial matters, that of viceroy would make him the personal representative of the monarch, and that of governor-general would enable him to act as supreme civil and military authority.

==First Voyage==
Isabella furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, from the port of Palos, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting mutiny.

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|250px|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the native Arawaks to be friendly and wrote such in his diary: "They offered to share with anyone, and when you ask for something, they never say no."

They found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Further establishing the kindness of the Arawaks, Columbus noted that the they were so kind, that after the shipwreck, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his cargo, and were so honest that not one thing was missing. Columbus saw the shipwreck as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onward to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

[[File:News1492.jpg|thumb|400px|News of Columbus' discovery spread across Europe with the republication of his Letter of March, 1493]]

==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards. On his second voyage Columbus was able to sail back exactly to the same place as on his first voyage, despite poor navigating techniques of the time period. Some attribute this fact to divine providence.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|Modern replica of the ''Santa Maria'']]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. The monarchs gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Establishment of Slavery==
Following his arrival, Columbus established ruthless slavery, including sexual slavery, of the natives. He wrote to a friend in 1500: "A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand." His enslavement of the natives in his gold mines was so brutal that within 2 years, 125,000 natives (half the population) were dead. Columbus himself wrote: "We shall take you and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault."

Bartolome de las Casas, a Catholic priest wrote, in the "History of the Indies" published in 1875, "... Slaves were the primary source of income for the Admiral (Columbus) with that income he intended to repay the money the Kings were spending in support of Spaniards on the Island. They provide profit and income to the Kings. (The Spaniards were driven by) insatiable greed ... killing, terrorizing, afflicting, and torturing the native peoples ... with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty."

Also documenting Columbus' cruel legacy, Father Fray Antonio de Montesino, a Dominican preacher, in December 1511 said this in a sermon that implicated Christopher Columbus and the colonists in the genocide of the native peoples: "Tell me by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt quietly and peacefully on their own lands? Wars in which you have destroyed such an infinite number of them by homicides and slaughters never heard of before..."

Local inhabitants who resisted Columbus and his crew had their ears or noses cut off, were mauled by attack dogs, skewered with pikes and shot. Reprisals were so severe that many of the natives committed mass suicide and women began practicing abortions in order not to leave children enslaved. The population of Haiti at the time of Columbus's arrival was between 1.5 million and 3 million. Sixty years later, every single native had been murdered.

For his cruelty, Christopher Columbus and his brothers were sent back to Spain (on August 23, 1500) in chains by Spanish Governor Francesco de Bobadilla for mistreating Natives in the section of Hispaniola now known as Haiti. When they arrived in Spain, however, they were immediately released and graciously received at the royal court.

==Death==
[[Image:Rabida.jpg|thumb|Santa María de la Rábida, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, Spain.]]
Columbus died a prosperous man in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. The notion that Columbus died in poverty and relative anonymity is a myth. It is also a myth that Columbus proved that the world was round. Europeans had known for centuries that the world was round. Columbus's disagreement with the experts was that he thought that the Earth was much smaller, and that he had enough supplies to sail to India.

==The Memory of Columbus==
Columbus has remained since the quest for independence a malleable and durable American symbol. Although ignored during most of the colonial period, he was, during the 1760s-1890s, interpreted and reinterpreted to fit our national character and used to mold a collective identity. This progress can be traced over three periods: as Columbia (an allegorical figure symbolizing liberty); as Columbus (an individual masculine explorer who sanctioned [[Manifest Destiny]]); and as Columbianism, a late-19th-century patriotic symbol involving cultural and political hegemony and various ethnic and religious identities. During this evolution of "discovering" Columbus, a significant amount of material culture surfaced in American art, monuments, coinage, and in various civic events. This led to a multiple set of uses of Columbus as a model or official icon by various organizations to help shape their identities. The discovery of Columbus also grew as new methods of communication and the development of various media in the visual arts replaced the oral tradition and elementary school prose of the 18th century. This adaption of Columbus as a national symbol created conflicting contexts for many, such as Protestants ignoring Columbus's Catholicism. All three periods signify steps in the nation's search for self-identity.<ref> Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR] </Ref>
[[File:Cordero Colon ante los reyes catolicos.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus at the court of the Spanish Catholic Kings by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
In the 19th century the works of historians [[Washington Irving]], [[George Bancroft]], and [[William Prescott]] created the scholarly foundations for American celebration of Columbus's achievements. Irving created a highly romantic description of Columbus's landing in ''A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus'' (1828). 19th century American painters and graphic artists conjured up romantic images to match those found in the book. The image portrayed in Irving's book and by the artists shows Columbus finding a sparsely populated virgin land inhabited by lightly clothed "savages" to whom he introduced a "superior" culture and the blessings of Christianity. The mythical image also claims that Columbus planted the seeds of future American economic prosperity.

Americans celebrated Columbus's discovery of the New World and built numerous monuments to him in the late 19th century. The city of Columbus, Ohio was established in 1812. In addition, cities and towns, streets and health facilities, libraries, universities, schools, and in modern times sport teams bearing his name are symbols of his American stature. [[Columbus Day]], is a national holiday in the United States, proclaimed so in 1937 by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], primarily at the behest of [[Catholic]]s and the fast growing [[Italian]] immigrant community who wanted a national holiday of celebration.

By the quincentenary celebration of his discovery in 1992, Columbus stood accused of genocide and ecocide. Columbus Day became controversial in the 1970s, as a matter of white guilt regarding the mistreatment of native Americans. The main accuser was Colorado professor [[Ward Churchill]] (who was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct and falsifying history); he compared Columbus to Nazi Holocaust sponsor [[Heinrich Himmler]], pointing to the genocidal outcome of Columbus's brutal practices in the Caribbean.

Columbus did return to Spain with a number of Indian slaves, and that slave labor was used in his quest for gold. Native populations died out primarily because of exposure to new Old World diseases.<ref>http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/holiday-history History of Columbus Day</ref>

Leftist protesters of the 1992 quincentennial celebrations of frequently used the term "genocide" to describe European treatment of the Indians, but they never defined genocide or provided sound evidence that Europeans practiced genocide. Historians should recognize the legitimate emotional source of these complaints, but counsel against the use of moral blackmail by groups who have something to gain from characterizing European treatment of Indians as genocidal. Historians should work to destroy "maleficent myths" about the past and expose complex origins of "current fortunes and misfortunes" without holding the descendants of those who wronged other peoples accountable for the deeds of their ancestors.<ref>James Axtell, "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370 </ref>

Besides the District of Columbia, and the province of British Columbia (Canada), numerous cities are named after Columbus, notably in Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

==Further reading==
* Bedini Silvio A., ed. ''Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia'' (1991); 787pp articles by 350 scholars; a major resource
** Bedini Silvio A. '' Christopher Columbus and the Age of Exploration'' (1998); 824pp encyclopedia
* Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. ''Columbus: And the Conquest of the Impossible'' (2nd ed. 2001), 128pp; good, short, scholarly
* Morison, Samuel Eliot. '' Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1942), 691pp; the best biography; written by an eminent conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Ocean-Sea-Christopher-Columbus/dp/0316584789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243893419&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Phillips, Carla Rahn. ''The Worlds of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1993) 340 pages, excellent popular biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/european-history/europe-1400-1789/christopher-columbus.jsp online books about Columbus]
* Taviani, Paolo Emilio. ''Columbus, The Great Adventure: His Life, His Times, and His Voyages'' (1991), by the leading Italian expert
* Watts, Pauline Moffitt. "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies'". ''American Historical Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 73-102; emphasizes complex religious motivations [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860749 in JSTOR]
* Wilford, John Noble. ''The Mysterious History of Columbus: An Exploration of the Man, the Myth, the Legacy'' (1991), the best popular biography; very well written

===Historiography===
* Axtell, James. "Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995." ''William And Mary Quarterly'' 1995 52(4): 649-696. [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/rev/AXTELL-1.HTML online edition]; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2947042 also in JSTOR], leading scholar reviews the major publications
* Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370
* Bushman, Claudia L. ''America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero.'' (1992). 217 pp.
* Davidson, Miles H. ''Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined.'' (1997). 609 pp.
* Sale, Kirkpatrick. ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.'' (1990). 453 pp. nasty attack from the Left
* Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR]
* Summerhill, Stephen J. and John Alexander Williams. ''Sinking Columbus: Contested History, Cultural Politics, and Mythmaking during the Quincentenary.'' (2000). 219 pp.
* [http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/columbus/print.html additional bibliography]

== See also ==

*[[Ethnic Groups Gallery]]

==External links==
* [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/ extensive collection of articles about Columbus]
*[http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php from Mariner's Museum]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Age of Exploration]]
[[Category:Italian People]]

Christopher Columbus

2013-07-12T03:49:18Z

Spotsbunch: /* First Voyage */

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus]]
'''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was an Italian explorer hired by Spain to reach Asia in 1491; instead he discovered a continent, and in four voyages explored the [[West Indies]] from 1492 to 1502. His discovery resulted in Europeans exploring and settling the Americas, and Columbus became both a symbol of the new world and an iconic hero for the age of exploration.

As conservative historian Wilcomb Washburn explains, if Columbus had not discovered the New World, the process of European discovery might have been very different. Rather than standing as a symbol of inexorable forces, Columbus is better seen as a representative of the spirit of inquiry, Christian religious zeal, and the notable achievements of Western Civilization.<ref> Wilcomb E. Washburn, "Columbus: Agent Of The Inevitable?" ''Continuity'' 1992 (16): 57-63. 0277-1446 </ref>

==Early career==
Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo in Italian; Cristobal Colon in Spanish) was born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. His father was a weaver, tavern keeper, and political appointee. Christopher was uneducated; he learned to read and write as an adult. Then he read widely. Genoa was a great seaport for the Mediterranean. He became a sailor and traveled widely in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Sometime in the mid-1470s, he settled in Portugal, joining the colony of Italian merchants in Lisbon, a cosmopolitan city at the center of Portuguese maritime activity in the Atlantic. He married into a prominent family in Lisbon, but his wife died soon after their son, Diego, was born in 1480. Columbus was a master mariner and adventurer, and a devout Catholic who saw religious goals in converting the Asians. He now had connections to the Portuguese court, important ties to Madeira and Porto Santo islands, and at least some wealth.

For centuries, Asia's lucrative commodities, such as spices, had brought European traders overland. That route was now closed and by the 1480s Portugal took the lead in opening ocean routes to Asia, sailing south around Africa into the Indian Ocean, using superb navigational aids they had invented, maps they kept secret, and excellent ships. products directly.

Hearing many tales of legendary Atlantic voyages and rumors of land to the west of Madeira and the Azores, he studied books and maps. Columbus became convinced that Asia could be reached by sailing due west from Europe. Columbus's ideas about the size of the world and a westward route to Asia probably evolved piecemeal. His conjectures were based on discoveries of islands in the Atlantic (the Canaries, the Azores, the Cape Verdes, the Madeiras), rumors of additional islands, findings of unusual plant material and even human bodies drifting in from the western ocean, and by wide reading in academic geography, including ''Imago mundi'' (Image of the World) by the French theologian Pierre d' Ailly and the ''Geographia'' the ancient scientist Ptolemy.<ref>The people Columbus dealt with all knew the earth was round.</ref>
[[File:PUERTO de Palos.jpg|thumb|left|Port of Palos in Spain; painting by Evaristo Domínguez.]]
He accepted Marco Polo's erroneous location for Japan-- as 1,500 miles east of China--and Ptolemy's underestimation of the circumference of the Earth. Therefore, he concluded, Japan was about 3,000 miles to the west of Portugal--which was barely within the extreme range of existing ships. In 1484, Columbus sought support for an exploratory voyage from King John II of Portugal, but he was rejected. The Portuguese believed it was too far for their ships.

In 1485 Columbus went to Spain, where he spent seven years trying to get support from Queen [[Isabella I]] of Castile. She favored his cause and provided a salary. Once Spain was unified in 1492, Isabella and her husband King Ferdinand of Aragon were ready to fund a major voyage. The moderate cost would be offset by spectacular returns, they figured. They promised to grant Columbus noble status and the titles of admiral, viceroy, and governor-general for any islands or mainland areas he discovered. The office of admiral would give Columbus the right to judge disputes that arose in commercial matters, that of viceroy would make him the personal representative of the monarch, and that of governor-general would enable him to act as supreme civil and military authority.

==First Voyage==
Isabella furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, from the port of Palos, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting mutiny.

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|250px|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the native Arawaks to be friendly and wrote such in his diary: "They offered to share with anyone, and when you ask for something, they never say no."

They found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Further establishing the kindness of the Arawaks, Columbus noted that the they were so kind, that after the shipwreck, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his cargo, and were so honest that not one thing was missing. Columbus saw the shipwreck as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onward to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

[[File:News1492.jpg|thumb|400px|News of Columbus' discovery spread across Europe with the republication of his Letter of March, 1493]]

==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards. On his second voyage Columbus was able to sail back exactly to the same place as on his first voyage, despite poor navigating techniques of the time period. Some attribute this fact to divine providence.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|Modern replica of the ''Santa Maria'']]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. The monarchs gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Death==
[[Image:Rabida.jpg|thumb|Santa María de la Rábida, Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, Spain.]]
Columbus died a prosperous man in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. The notion that Columbus died in poverty and relative anonymity is a myth. It is also a myth that Columbus proved that the world was round. Europeans had known for centuries that the world was round. Columbus's disagreement with the experts was that he thought that the Earth was much smaller, and that he had enough supplies to sail to India.

==The Memory of Columbus==
Columbus has remained since the quest for independence a malleable and durable American symbol. Although ignored during most of the colonial period, he was, during the 1760s-1890s, interpreted and reinterpreted to fit our national character and used to mold a collective identity. This progress can be traced over three periods: as Columbia (an allegorical figure symbolizing liberty); as Columbus (an individual masculine explorer who sanctioned [[Manifest Destiny]]); and as Columbianism, a late-19th-century patriotic symbol involving cultural and political hegemony and various ethnic and religious identities. During this evolution of "discovering" Columbus, a significant amount of material culture surfaced in American art, monuments, coinage, and in various civic events. This led to a multiple set of uses of Columbus as a model or official icon by various organizations to help shape their identities. The discovery of Columbus also grew as new methods of communication and the development of various media in the visual arts replaced the oral tradition and elementary school prose of the 18th century. This adaption of Columbus as a national symbol created conflicting contexts for many, such as Protestants ignoring Columbus's Catholicism. All three periods signify steps in the nation's search for self-identity.<ref> Thomas J. Schlereth, "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR] </Ref>
[[File:Cordero Colon ante los reyes catolicos.jpg|thumb|Christopher Columbus at the court of the Spanish Catholic Kings by [[Juan Cordero]].]]
In the 19th century the works of historians [[Washington Irving]], [[George Bancroft]], and [[William Prescott]] created the scholarly foundations for American celebration of Columbus's achievements. Irving created a highly romantic description of Columbus's landing in ''A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus'' (1828). 19th century American painters and graphic artists conjured up romantic images to match those found in the book. The image portrayed in Irving's book and by the artists shows Columbus finding a sparsely populated virgin land inhabited by lightly clothed "savages" to whom he introduced a "superior" culture and the blessings of Christianity. The mythical image also claims that Columbus planted the seeds of future American economic prosperity.

Americans celebrated Columbus's discovery of the New World and built numerous monuments to him in the late 19th century. The city of Columbus, Ohio was established in 1812. In addition, cities and towns, streets and health facilities, libraries, universities, schools, and in modern times sport teams bearing his name are symbols of his American stature. [[Columbus Day]], is a national holiday in the United States, proclaimed so in 1937 by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], primarily at the behest of [[Catholic]]s and the fast growing [[Italian]] immigrant community who wanted a national holiday of celebration.

By the quincentenary celebration of his discovery in 1992, Columbus stood accused of genocide and ecocide. Columbus Day became controversial in the 1970s, as a matter of white guilt regarding the mistreatment of native Americans. The main accuser was Colorado professor [[Ward Churchill]] (who was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct and falsifying history); he compared Columbus to Nazi Holocaust sponsor [[Heinrich Himmler]], pointing to the genocidal outcome of Columbus's brutal practices in the Caribbean.

Columbus did return to Spain with a number of Indian slaves, and that slave labor was used in his quest for gold. Native populations died out primarily because of exposure to new Old World diseases.<ref>http://www.history.com/content/columbusday/holiday-history History of Columbus Day</ref>

Leftist protesters of the 1992 quincentennial celebrations of frequently used the term "genocide" to describe European treatment of the Indians, but they never defined genocide or provided sound evidence that Europeans practiced genocide. Historians should recognize the legitimate emotional source of these complaints, but counsel against the use of moral blackmail by groups who have something to gain from characterizing European treatment of Indians as genocidal. Historians should work to destroy "maleficent myths" about the past and expose complex origins of "current fortunes and misfortunes" without holding the descendants of those who wronged other peoples accountable for the deeds of their ancestors.<ref>James Axtell, "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370 </ref>

Besides the District of Columbia, and the province of British Columbia (Canada), numerous cities are named after Columbus, notably in Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio.

==Further reading==
* Bedini Silvio A., ed. ''Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia'' (1991); 787pp articles by 350 scholars; a major resource
** Bedini Silvio A. '' Christopher Columbus and the Age of Exploration'' (1998); 824pp encyclopedia
* Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe. ''Columbus: And the Conquest of the Impossible'' (2nd ed. 2001), 128pp; good, short, scholarly
* Morison, Samuel Eliot. '' Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1942), 691pp; the best biography; written by an eminent conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Ocean-Sea-Christopher-Columbus/dp/0316584789/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243893419&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Phillips, Carla Rahn. ''The Worlds of Christopher Columbus‎'' (1993) 340 pages, excellent popular biography
* [http://www.questia.com/library/history/european-history/europe-1400-1789/christopher-columbus.jsp online books about Columbus]
* Taviani, Paolo Emilio. ''Columbus, The Great Adventure: His Life, His Times, and His Voyages'' (1991), by the leading Italian expert
* Watts, Pauline Moffitt. "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies'". ''American Historical Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 73-102; emphasizes complex religious motivations [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860749 in JSTOR]
* Wilford, John Noble. ''The Mysterious History of Columbus: An Exploration of the Man, the Myth, the Legacy'' (1991), the best popular biography; very well written

===Historiography===
* Axtell, James. "Columbian Encounters: 1992-1995." ''William And Mary Quarterly'' 1995 52(4): 649-696. [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/rev/AXTELL-1.HTML online edition]; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2947042 also in JSTOR], leading scholar reviews the major publications
* Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492," ''Historian'' 1993 56(1): 17-28. 0018-2370
* Bushman, Claudia L. ''America Discovers Columbus: How an Italian Explorer Became an American Hero.'' (1992). 217 pp.
* Davidson, Miles H. ''Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined.'' (1997). 609 pp.
* Sale, Kirkpatrick. ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.'' (1990). 453 pp. nasty attack from the Left
* Schlereth, Thomas J. "Columbia, Columbus, And Columbianism." ''Journal of American History'' 1992 79(3): 937-968. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2080794 in JSTOR]
* Summerhill, Stephen J. and John Alexander Williams. ''Sinking Columbus: Contested History, Cultural Politics, and Mythmaking during the Quincentenary.'' (2000). 219 pp.
* [http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/columbus/print.html additional bibliography]

== See also ==

*[[Ethnic Groups Gallery]]

==External links==
* [http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/ extensive collection of articles about Columbus]
*[http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php from Mariner's Museum]

== References ==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Colonial America]]
[[Category:Spanish Empire]]
[[Category:Age of Exploration]]
[[Category:Italian People]]

Australia

2012-12-26T03:06:57Z

Spotsbunch:

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Julia Gillard
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast facing [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney Harbour Bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and two internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

Water is somewhat scarce and some cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]]. Contrary to that, young earth creation scientists assert that the entire subset animals that are all the Earth's species of kangaroos, wallabies and orher similar creatures travelled together to Australia following the Great Flood. It is not known whether they communicated the idea amongst themselves or all went the same way by chance.

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.

According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|The [[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[Formula One]], [[V8 Supercars]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen horse racers with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. In June 2010, [[Julia Gillard]] became the first female Prime Minister after she defeated [[Kevin Rudd]] in a partyroom leadership challenge.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gillard ousts Rudd in bloodless coup |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935500.htm|accessdate=24 June 2010|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=24 June 2010}}</ref>

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, ACT and the Northern Territory. The other state governments see the Liberal Party in control. The Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.

Conservative Queensland polititian and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectivly represented by the major partys. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Quentin Bryce
*Prime Minister--Julia Gillard
*Deputy Prime Minister--Wayne Swan
*Treasurer--Wayne Swan
*Foreign Minister--Kevin Rudd
*Defense Minister--Stephen Smith
*Trade Minister--Craig Emerson

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living their. he great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Book of Mormon

2012-11-04T02:43:11Z

Spotsbunch: /* Historicity */

'''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ'''<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]; Title page since 1982: ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.'' Original title page: ''The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of [[Mormon]] upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.''</ref> is one of the four standard works, or scriptures, of the [[Mormons|Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]] ([[Mormon]]s). The other standard works are the [[Bible]], the [[Pearl of Great Price]], and the [[Doctrine and Covenants]].
[[Image:Moroni gives Joseph the plates.jpg|thumb|100px|Moroni gives Joseph Smith the plates]]
[[Image:Joseph Translating.jpg|thumb|100px|Joseph Smith Translating the Plates]]
Mormons believe that [[Joseph Smith]], Jr. translated the Book of Mormon from a set of gold plates he received from an angel named Moroni<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34-35#34 "History of Joseph Smith,"] History of the Church Vol. 1</ref>

<blockquote>
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
 -Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm "A Treasured Testament,"] Ensign, July 1993, 61</ref></blockquote>

The Book of Mormon tells the story of the descendents of a man named Lehi, who took his family from Jerusalem to the Americas. According to the book, Lehi's wicked sons, Laman and Lemual, turned against his righteous sons, Nephi and Sam, and were cursed with dark skin<ref>[http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Alma3.htm GospelDoctrine.com]</ref>. Mormons believe that descendents of Lehi were the ancestors of some Native Americans; these people are referred to as "Lamanites" in the Book of Mormon:<ref>[http://search.ldslibrary.com/125037 Elder Spencer W. Kimball of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles]</ref> A post-resurrection appearance in the New World by [[Jesus]] is also described in the Book of Mormon.

 
Nephi and Sam's descendents, the Nephites, eventually turned to wickedness and were destroyed by the more numerous Lamanites. One of the last Nephites, Moroni, buried the golden plates in what is now New York State to keep them from falling into the hands of the Lamanites and being destroyed.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents The Book of Mormon]</ref> Three Nephites were blessed with eternal life and still wander the Earth today serving others.<ref>[http://deseretmail.com/mormon-life/curric/story?story_id=1580 "Clyde J. Williams on the Three Nephites and the Doctrine of Translation,"] Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 42, Deseret Book.</ref> 

In 1982, the subtitle, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," was added to the title page<ref>[http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/bookofmormon.htm A Short Introduction to the Book of Mormon]</ref>.

Mormons and other Latter-Day Saints believe that the book is of ancient origin and that the personages and events described therein are factual. At the same time, Mormons deny that the book is to be considered inerrant. Critics assert that its contents have been changed a number of times by LDS authorities; Mormons reply that the changes are merely grammatical corrections.

==Historicity==

The Book of Mormon is widely criticized for the absence of evidence supporting it. The list of missing artifacts includes almost forty entire cities (all cities named therein), animals (such as horses and cattle), metals (iron and steel), evidence of wars (involving multiple thousands of deaths), weapons (including swords, spears and armor), machinery and other technology cited within it - spanning the many hundreds of years covered by the narrative.

Because no such supporting evidence has been found, the LDS church takes no official position on the geography of the Book of Mormon.

Artifacts of such a nature (found in the Americas) have been found to have been introduced into the areas in question by Europeans colonists much later than the timeframe claimed in the Book of Mormon. Mormon Apologists have worked to find counterarguments and responses to all of these claims.<ref>[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms]</ref>

[[Mormon]] apologists have responded by citing, for example, the first Book of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi) in which discoveries of place locations thought not to have existed prior to discovery are to be found. An instance of this concerns the alleged discovery of the place known as "Nahom" as mentioned here ([http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.34?lang=eng#33]), a burial place which was discovered and is said by Mormons to be referred to in no other text.<ref>[http://en.fairmormon.org/Nahom FAIR Wiki- Mormon Apologetic resource- Nahom]</ref>. Likewise Old world geography in the Book has been pinpointed by apologists.<ref>[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Old_World]</ref>.

Opponents have pointed to linguistic anachronisms in the text, such as it being written entirely in a Sixteenth-century King James style and its use of words such as French word "adieu". Mormon apologists argue that they have found numerous Semetic linguistic and literary traits within it which make it appear authentic, such as the inclusion of Chaismus<ref>[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus Chiasmus]</ref> and numerous other Hebrew traits within the text<ref>[http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms]</ref>

Mormons do ultimately confess that the main evidence and support for the Book of Mormon does not center upon history or language but upon faith that it is a divinely inspired document.

Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay has compiled his own list Book of Mormon evidences.<ref>[http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml]</ref>

==Contents==
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ <ref>http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents</ref> is divided up into many sections or parts, including a [[Title Page (Book of Mormon)|Title Page]], [[Introduction (Book of Mormon)|Introduction]], [[The Testimony of Three Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Three Witnesses]], [[The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (Book of Mormon)|The Testimony of Eight Witnesses]], the [[Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Book of Mormon)|Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith]], [[A Brief Explanation about The Book of Mormon]], and the following main parts or divisions commonly referred to as "books," as in "The Book of Moroni," followed by the common abbreviation in parentheses:
*[[First Nephi]] (1 Ne.)
*[[Second Nephi]] (2 Ne.)
*[[Jacob (Book of Mormon)|Jacob]] (Jacob)
*[[Enos (Book of Mormon)|Enos]] (Enos)
*[[Jarom (Book of Mormon)|Jarom]] (Jarom)
*[[Omni (Book of Mormon)|Omni]] (Omni)
*[[Words of Mormon]] (W of M)
*[[Mosiah (Book of Mormon)|Mosiah]] (Mosiah)
*[[Alma (Book of Mormon)|Alma]] (Alma)
*[[Helaman (Book of Mormon)|Helaman]] (Hel.)
*[[Third Nephi]] (3 Ne.)
*[[Fourth Nephi]] (4 Ne.)
*[[Mormon (Book of Mormon)|Mormon]] (Morm.)
*[[Ether (Book of Mormon)|Ether]] (Ether)
*[[Moroni (Book of Mormon)|Moroni]] (Moro.).

The first sentence of the Introduction is quite self-explanatory: "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel." <ref>http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction</ref>

*[[Objects listed in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[People listed in the Book of Mormon]]
*[[Places listed in the Book of Mormon]]

==Other denominations==
The Book of Mormon is accepted as Scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by other Latter-day Saints denominations, the largest of which, the [[Community of Christ]] (est. 1860), publishes its own versions of the Book of Mormon with different chapter and verse divisions and one with "modernized" language. Other Christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant, reject the Book of Mormon, considering it to be neither inspired nor ancient.

== Polygamy ==
Although the Book of Mormon generally forbids [[polygamy]], it allows for its practice when divinely mandated, apparently for the purpose of raising righteous posterity. The Book of Mormon says the following concerning plural marriage:

''"Wherefore, my bretheren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and [[concubine]]s he shall have none... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."'' (Jacob 2:27,30).

The alleged revelation that authorized the practice of polygamy among Latter-day Saints during the 19th Century is recorded in the [[Doctrine and Covenants]], section 132.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents The Book of Mormon] - An online edition
*[http://www.moroni10.com/Book_of_Mormon_Logic.html The Logical Arguments of the Book of Mormon], Kelly Bingham, November 1, 1997

[[Category:Book of Mormon]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

Mitt Romney

2012-05-28T13:02:54Z

Spotsbunch:

{{Officeholder
|name=Willard Mitt Romney
|image=MittPortrait.jpg‎
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Ann Romney]]
|religion=[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Massachusetts
|terms=January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
|preceded=[[Jane Swift]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Deval Patrick]]
}}
}}

'''Willard Mitt Romney''' (born March 12, 1947) is a [[RINO]], former governor of [[Massachusetts]] and a successful U.S. businessman, currently portrayed in the mainstream media as the [[2012 Republican Primary|presumptive Republican nominee]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]]. He was first runner-up for the nomination in 2008. If elected, Romney would become the first [[Mormon]] president. His father [[George Romney]], a former governor of Michigan, ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1968. In 1994, Mitt Romney proved to be the most difficult challenger that incumbent Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] of Massachusetts ever faced for reelection, causing Kennedy to pour far more money into the race than he expected.<ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/romney/ Romney to the Rescue: Mitt Romney's Got the Right Stuff for 2008] Kessler, Ronald, newsmax.com archives, retrieved April 27, 2012</ref>

In early May 2012, '''[[Mitt Romney]] jumped to a 7-point lead over [[Obama]], 50-43%, in the presidential race'''.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/226943-poll-romney-opens-up-big-lead-nationally</ref>

Before entering politics Romney was a businessman in Boston, having served as CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm known for outsourcing American jobs. His political start began during the financially unsteady 2002 Winter Olympics. He gained popularity in Massachusetts, a state known for being extremely liberal, and was elected governor in 2002. As governor he raised taxes several times. He unashamedly admits creating [[RomneyCare]], which is a complete disaster and forces everyone to buy health insurance and has resulted in long delays for obtaining medical services, such as an ordinary physical, in that state. [[Ted Kennedy]] and other [[liberals]] supported the bill and probably wrote key parts of it. Romney declined to run for reelection and announced his candidacy for President.

During his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, Romney was widely but incorrectly supported as a staunch conservative and ran on his business experience in the private sector. Romney fought a rough battle against Senator [[John McCain]] in Florida, Michigan, and other key states, but large losses on the Super Tuesday primaries ended his campaign. Romney dropped out of the race and endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] on February 14, 2008. His name was circulated as a potential running mate for McCain as their relationship improved, though [[Sarah Palin]] eventually became the vice-president nominee.

Romney has supported many far left positions: Romney has a pro-abortion record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in liberal propaganda claiming global warming; Romney has been criticized for standing behind his 2005 [[RomneyCare|health care plan in Massachusetts]], which featured a mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance as well as taxpayer-funded abortion. This plan is very similar to the 2010 ObamaCare bill that was adopted on a national level, and may have been the basis for it.

The lack of criticism of Romney by the mainstream media suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.

==Flip Flopping==
Romney's inconsistent track record on issues such as abortion and gay marriage has gotten to the point where he has gotten the nickname '''Multiple Choice Mitt.''' A man dressed as a dolphin calling himself Flipper has appeared at some recent conservative gatherings to bring attention to Romney's inconsistent stands on abortion and gay marriage. Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002. These swaps coupled with his Mormon affiliation puts him at odds with much of the Evangelical right, but a PollingReport.com chart from September 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 10% within the GOP primary forecasts.

*Mitt Romney also changed his positions on gun control. He was originally for it, but recently joined the National Rifle Association, an organization opposed to it.

*Following the split of the first three major elections in the 2008 primaries, Ron Kaufman, a top adviser to Romney, stated that the battle between the top three candidates "is going to be like the Bataan Death March."

The Bataan Death March resulted in the death of approximately 9,000 prisoners of war during World War II, and has been labeled as a war crime.

== Personal Life ==
[[Image:MittRomneyYouth05.jpg|thumb|Ann Lois Davies and Willard Mitt Romney]]
Romney is the scion of an old Mormon family. His grandparents were polygamists who fled the United States in the early 20th century when the Mormon Church repudiated polygamy; his father was born in Mexico. The Romneys returned to the U.S. in 1911 when a violent civil war broke out in Mexico.

Mitt Romney is a devout member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]], and spent time as a missionary during his youth converting Catholics and agnostics to Mormonism in France. In fact, his time as a student and missionary helped him defer from military service during the Vietnam draft,<ref>Michael Kranish, "The Making of Mitt Romney: Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney, other missionaries" June 24, 2007. The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part1_side_2/?page=1 </ref> but he stated during interviews that "he had longed to join the soldiers in Vietnam and support the war effort." His father had stated in 1967 that he felt "brainwashed" by U.S. officials over the justification of the prolonged Vietnam war. This statement had been very costly in George Romney's 1968 campaign for president against Richard Nixon.

Romney claims to maintains a stable marriage with his wife Ann, with whom he has five children.

Romney is the son of former [[Michigan]] governor and presidential candidate [[George Romney]], a "Rockefeller Republican,"<ref>Lisa McGirr, ''Suburban Warriors''(2001) pp. 141, 222.</ref> who amassed a large fortune as an automobile industry magnate during World War II.  George Romney was popular among moderates during his presidential run and was well-equipped for victory; many of his political advisors had come from [[Nelson Rockefeller]]'s 1964 campaign.

==Business Career==
From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. a worldwide management consulting firm, and in 1984, Romney co-founded a spin-off called Bain Capital. He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority. Critics say he advised corporations to cut their U.S. taxes by reincorporating in Caribbean tax havens such as the Caymen Islands, while maintaining their operations in the U.S.

==Record as Governor==
Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally [[conservative]] record that included economic expansion. He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $500 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term. In 2004, 2005, and 2006 Governor Romney proposed cutting the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php</ref>. Although the Democratic super majority in the state legislator refused to budge. Romney vetoed 844 pieces of legislation, with over 700 overridden. <ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Government_Reform.htm</ref> He vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, saying "there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs." <ref>Telegram & Gazette, 08/01/06</ref> Under Governor Romney the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay additional taxes and fees. <ref>http://www.americansformitt.com/</ref> Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson praised Romney, saying "There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He's been a really good friend to the taxpayers."

However, some of the actions Governor Romney took received criticisms from conservatives, such as supporting moderate fee increases and creating and the nation's first universal [[health care]] program. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign Romney supported [[abortion]], his views evolved and would later take [[pro-life]] positions such as vetoing emergency contraception and vetoing [[stem-cell research]] that would allow cloning of human embryos. In 2006, Governor Romney testified before the [[United States]] [[Senate]] to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would limit marriage to one man and one woman. Additionally, Romney filed legislation to reinstate [[capital punishment]], but was defeated in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a 99-53 vote.

Mitt Romney made no pardons as governor, "My conclusion was, if somebody has been convicted by a jury of their peers, and they’ve been prosecuted and the police were able to get the evidence necessary to put them behind bars, why in the world would I step in and reverse that sentence?" <ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/romney-on-huckabee-unlike-some-people-i-never-pardoned-anyone/</ref>

On [[Education]] Romney called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school<ref>Telegram & Gazette, 02/27/03</ref>. In 2004, he established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program, which rewarded the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public [[university]] or [[college]]. In August 2006, Governor Romney refused to allow former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, an outspoken opponent of the [[United States]] and [[Israel]], state police escorts during his speech at [[Harvard University]]. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/editorials/khatemi-at-harvard/38903/</ref>

In December 2006, Romney signed a memorandum of agreement with the federal government that would allow state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws <ref>http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=96543</ref>, however was revoked when Democrat Deval Patrict took office as Governor in January 2007.

== Political Views ==

===Abortion===
Currently, Romney claims to be pro-life, but his record is very spotty. At times he has claimed to be pro-infantacide.
"I am [[pro-life]]. I believe that [[abortion]] is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by [[judicial mandate]]." ([[Boston]] Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
<ref>[http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values America's Culture and Values] mittromney.com</ref> 

Despite having a largely pro-life record as governor, in a 1994 debate with Senator [[Edward Kennedy]], Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." "Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion", Romney said. "It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romneys_abortion_stance/?page=2</ref>

In his campaign literature for the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Romney expressed a willingness to defend that State's pro-choice status quo.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/4</ref> He stated in a live, televised debate<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4</ref>:

{{cquote|"I've been very clear on that, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."}}

===Civil Unions===
Romney claims to be opposed to the idea of [[gay marriage]], however he has voiced explicit support for the [[homosexual agenda]]. He has advocated for domestic partnership benefits and equal rights for [[homosexuals]], which is gay marriage in everything but name and an easy stepping stone on the vile gay agenda path towards homosexual recruitment.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/3</ref>. He also supports adoption for gay couples<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57432292-503544/romney-says-hes-fine-with-gay-couples-adopting-children/</ref>.

===Economic Agenda===
As President, Romney promised to pursue a conservative, pro-growth economic agenda. His number one economic priority would be to grow the economy — helping to create good jobs, raise incomes and preserve American strength. He says he would work to rein in excessive government spending and reform entitlements. To ensure America's continued economic growth, he promises to cut taxes — such as the Death Tax, savings taxes, corporate taxes and marginal tax rates. Despite these claims, he has supported the [[socialist|socialism]] agenda. He claimed credit for the government bailout of the union controlled car companies<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/romney-taking-credit-for-auto-industry-success/</ref>. Also his [[RomneyCare]] law started the process of [[socialism|socializing]] medical care in [[Massachusetts]]. He continues to defend this law up to this day, undermining his commitment to repel the similar and equally atrocious [[ObamaCare]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-defends-romneycare_560953.html</ref>.

Romney says he would also promote trade, bring market forces to bear in health care, pursue national tort and liability reform, eliminate excessive regulations that put a burden on our economy and strengthen American families.

===Immigration===

<blockquote>Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.<ref>http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Immigration</ref></blockquote>

Romney supports a strong stance on illegal immigration.<ref>[http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=91722 IowaPolitics.com: Romney Touts Strong Stance On Illegal Immigration]</ref> On 5/24/07, Romney spoke about how he was tolerant about gays and then he discussed the current illegal immigration bill before Congress:
<blockquote>He expressed less tolerance for illegal immigrants, and said he and President Bush have a difference of opinions on a bill that would provide a path toward legalization for an estimated 12 million people unlawfully in the country.

"He has his view, and other people have their views and I have my own," Romney said. "This is for all intents and purposes a form of amnesty in that everyone who is here illegally today will be able to stay under this bill."

The bill is unfair to people who are trying to come to the country legally, he said. People here illegally should be able to apply to come to the United States, but under the same terms as everyone else and behind those who have already applied.

"I don't think that we're going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That's not what I'm talking about," Romney said. "Those who committed felonies, of course, would be deported. Those who require government assistance to stay here would surely need to get off government assistance and ultimately could not remain here on government assistance."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May24/0,4670,RomneyGays,00.html</ref></blockquote>

===Stem Cell Research===
Mitt Romney supports the right of scientists to research on embryos created during fertility treatments, which is essentially infantacide.<ref>http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[Mitt Romney 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''

[[Image:Dude and mitt romney.jpg|right|180px]] As chairman of the [[Republican Governors Association]], Romney campaigned nationwide for GOP gubernatorial candidates in 2006, building up a network of allies and supporters. While he did not run for reelection as governor, in 2004 Romney set up a federal political action committee (PAC) called the Commonwealth PAC, which raised $2.71 million during the 2006 election cycle. On January 3, 2007, his next-to-last day in office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney filed to form a presidential exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission. He officially announced his candidacy for President a month later. Romney was the first candidate in either party to start running television and radio ads. The ads focused mainly on his record as governor, running the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, and his work as a very successful businessman. Romney's five sons had been actively campaigning for their father, traveling around in a campaign bus called the "Mitt Mobile, A Five Brothers Bus."

As a presidential candidate Romney sought the support of the business community and social conservatives. He reversed moderate positions on abortion and gay rights to take a hardline conservative position on them, and on opposition to illegal immigrants. Opponents charged he changed too often. Romney was a leader in fund-raising, augmented by over $35 million from his own fortune. However he was little known outside of Massachusetts, so his strategy was to play for early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, then "sling-shot" the momentum into national visibility. Romney won the Michigan primary on January 16th, 2008, with 39% of the vote, edging out McCain with 30% and Huckabee with 16%. Romney was favored to win in the state of his birth, where his father, [[George Romney]] was governor from 1963-1969. After losing both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary (to Huckabee and McCain, respectively), Romney won a low-publicized Wyoming caucus. On January 19, Romney easily won the [[Nevada]] caucuses by 37 percentage points when there were seven candidates on the ballot, however, on that same day he placed a distant fourth in the [[South Carolina]] primary. After a disappointing performance on Super Tuesday, Romney announced the suspension of his campaign on Thursday 7th February. He expressed his wishes not to divide the Republican party and later endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]]. Commentators correctly speculated on his chances for a return effort in 2012.

===Fundraising===
Mitt Romney had done well in fund raising. During his first fund raiser as a presidential candidate, he raised $6.5 million dollars compared to an original goal of only $1 million. During the first quarter Romney raised more money then any other Republican presidential candidate with $23 million. However, a substantial portion of his funds ($17 million) came from his own personal wealth. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/16/top_spender_romney_could_soon_run_short/]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mittromney.com Mitt Romney for President 2008]
*[http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=17633 Mitt Romney: proudly, quietly Mormon]
*[http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/ Evangelicals for Mitt]
*[http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2007/03/fresh-mitt-romney-juvenalia-hot-off.html Fresh Mitt Romney Juvenalia] Pics - Comments.
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4MmMyMzVkZjlhZGQzNzlhZjdmMDEzNjI3MzM4ZTA= Mitt Romney: “I Changed My View. Is that So Difficult to Understand?”] The candidate talks about his efforts to convince voters that his pro-life conversion is real. Byron York, National Review Online, November 20, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZkMWNkZDkzOTk1YTM0NTNkNmJlZThmYjJmM2ZmOGE= Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?] Mark Hemingway, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EzODZjY2UxZTRhMWE2ZDk1ZWE5MGI0ZmRjMDViZTI= Team Romney on Push-Poll Connections] After reading the Hemingway piece, Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman replies. Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzliMDgzOWVlOGEwYThlMzc5ZDVlNzM2YjA4M2ZkYTg= Romney Stands for Faith] The candidate pushes back against push-poll attacks. Larry Kudlow, National Review Online, November 16, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ4YmM4Y2U3Yjc3MzYzNDQwYzk3YTVjMTI5YTkwNzg= Romney’s Religion], The Editors, National Review Online, November 16, 2007

==Blogs==
*[http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/ My Man Mitt]
*[http://libertariansformitt.wordpress.com/ Libertarians for Romney]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Romney, Mitt}}
[[Category:Massachusetts Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Mormons]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

User talk:Jcw

2011-07-13T13:22:36Z

Spotsbunch:

This is a [[meritocracy]], and you deserve blocking privileges. They have just been awarded to you. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, much appreciated. I'll endeavor to use the privileges responsibly and to the benefit of CP. If I have questions about blocking policy or anti-vandal tactics, is it alright to ask publicly on your talk page, or is there a better venue? Thanks again. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, your new privileges were just in time! Great effort a little while ago.

::I'll mark your talk page here as "watched" and you can ask any questions about blocking here, or on my talk page. Looks like you already know what you need, however!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Indeed, the vandals never seem to be far away... One question occurs at once: from the username policy, I'd assume that anyone with a clearly incorrect username should be gently blocked and invited to re-join. Is that something I can legitimately do, or should I leave it to the admins? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:57, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Please do block inappropriate user names, even before any edits. Note that it is necessary to unblock the option boxes in those cases in order to allow re-registering under an appropriate name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

==Freyja==

I won't put up with edit warring over my talk page. If you want to have this sort of discussion on here, you have to be civil and respectful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:21, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

:Genuine thanks for being even handed and deleting the whole thread, rather than selectively deleting individual contributions. [[User:Freyja|Freyja]]

::I suppose I can't be upset at your using a sock to post that... I look forward to an interesting discussion elsewhere - perhaps on your talk page, or a CP debate page? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello there, I'm new here on Conservapedia. However it seems I cannot create new pages. Is there any way I am able to do so? Or is it a restriction to protect the wiki from vandals creating nonsense pages? [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 10:33, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

: When an entry does not exist, there is a link to click for it in order to create it. You should be able to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== A minor point ==

First, congrats! And thanks for sorting out the A.D.s at [[Otho]]. Now for the minor point: virtually all of you edits are marked as ''minor''. That's very humble, but not right :-) Please have a look at [[Help:Editing etiquette#Minor Edit box]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, a good point - I set the software to mark all edits as 'minor' when I first started contributing, and back then it was true. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:05, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Alert block ==

Jcw, your alert block earlier was superb. I should have promoted you to this sooner: SkipCaptcha. Now you won't have to enter captcha characters any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, that'll be useful - reverting blanked pages usually involves a captcha, so skipping it will make fixing vandalism twice as fast. Speaking of which, have you considered a tool to allow banning a vandal and reverting all his edits at once? Of course it would only be applicable to the run-of-the-mill drive-by vandals who blank a few pages then get banned, but it could save a lot of time spent reverting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:37, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
::::I think MediaWiki has an extension called Nuke something or other that does that type of reverting. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== thanks, removed reference to website ==

Thanks, I removed reference to the website in question. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Glad to be a help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== N3hima blocked ==

Good catch, I think they are trying to check whether the sysops read all the posts. Thank God you were alert :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks. That's actually the first remotely intelligent attempt at vandalism I've seen - I'd almost stopped paying attention by the time it came to the vandalism. I think if the user had had a more reasonable name I might not have noticed at all. Silly vandal! [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::Hehe, I do not like vandalism, but I must admit that this one attempt made me laugh! Still, good catch! --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 02:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative words count ==

You appear to have inadvertently reverted my change to the word count on Conservative Words. I added "left wing" to the 1800s. That is why the count was changed. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 21:15, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, my mistake. However, you seem to be adding some dubious words to the list - 'vacuous' seems awfully like parody to me. Please come and discuss your additions on the talk page. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:37, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::I confess I am a little concerned and even put out by your reaction to my editing. And by the reaction of Aschlafly. Between you, you have removed all of my additions to the article. At least in your case you gave some sort of reason (in relation to "garrote" which I address below) but Aschlafly gave no reason at all other than an assertion that the edits didn't meet the "particularly high quality level" required. So I am left to ponder how my entry of "vacuous - Empty, void or free. A common characteristic of liberal argument" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "blather - nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the lamestream media"". Or how my entry of the word "morals - A person's moral qualities" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "fat farm - a place where obese people -- such as self-centered atheists -- might go to try to lose weight". Perhaps you could explain the difference to me? I have an interest in etymology and am very interested in editing the page so it would be of great assistance to know how these things are judged.
::As to the word "garrote" I regarded it as a conservative term in light of the fact that it was the state sanctioned method of execution in Spain for some time. Indeed American authorities kept the garrote as a method of execution in the Philippines after its capture in 1898. Capital punishment is often decried by liberals who have little or no concept of righteous punishment for criminal acts, whereas conservatives have always recognised the benefit of capital punishment in building a law abiding and just society. That was why I included the word. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and will not reintroduce the word into the article without consulting you. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 00:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Trolling? ==

I'm sorry - but when is raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of people on Conservapedia "trolling"? Or is the standard response to "something I don't like" to delete it? Please can you enlighten me, so I know for future reference. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:04, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Please go back and re-read what you wrote. Your tone was rather offensive, indeed it seemed calculated to provoke Conservative. I'm sure you can make your substantive points in a less strident manner, then they'll be more likely to get a response. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:14, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry, I was - am - annoyed. But I will tone down my questions for him. Thank you! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:21, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::No problem TracyS, it happens to us all. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:28, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

== Well-deserved promotion ==

You've just received a well-deserved promotion to full 24x7 editing, without interruption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Superb, many thanks. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:02, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball ==

Hi - I was curious why you reverted my change on netball? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:32, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add: This is from the referenced article on netball: Netball is an Olympic recognised sport. The sport gained recognition in 1995, after a twenty year period of lobbying. '''It has never been played at the summer Olympics but recognition means that it could be played at some point in the future.'''

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:36, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hi Sharon. That entry could certainly be improved to make the point clearer, but I think it is correct - if you look at the WP article as it is now, and at its talk page, it's clear that there's been an overtly feminist attempt to overstate the importance and the international standing of netball using WP. The links given perhaps aren't the best chosen, but illustrating a wiki controversy by static links is always a difficult task. Note that the example is from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], so that would be the best place to take issue with it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:52, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::I agree that the WP article overemphasizes the sport - I know I've never heard of it before. There already is a statement in the CP article about feminists' arguments about the sport, but I still maintain that the WP article does NOT say the game is played in the Olympics, which the CP article states. The above bolded sentence has been in the WP article since it was created. Personally, I'd add a bit about sport fanaticism too, to all sporting articles, since it can be just as bad if not worse than feminism. ;-) [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:26, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I think you're right on that point - I certainly wouldn't object if you re-wrote that part to be clearer about exactly what's wrong with the WP article. As for sports fanaticism, I entirely agree - my idea of sport involves dead birds and gin, so the fanaticism one sees around professional sports is incomprehensible to me. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:43, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Endosymbiotic Theory ==

Hi, I recently authored a page on Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) that was factually accurate (I cited sources) and well-written (two users felt the page was excellent). I spent a great deal of time on it in order to legitimize Conservapedia as a source for scientific information. However, I found that it was almost immediately altered beyond recognition. We had a less-than-productive debate on the Talk page, and you removed the one comment that was rather insulting/trolling. I fail to see how it was, seeing as it DID raise legitimate concerns concerning the article. I don't know if you read my original article, but I feel that it is far superior to the current one and demonstrates a much better understanding of biological science. Please take a look and give me your thoughts. With all due respect, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 18:54, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Hi Professor. Please don't take this personally, but you really could have chosen a better username - real names or something like them are much preferred around here, and a name like 'professor' tends to suggest an attempt to impress with credentials. I'm sure that's not your intention, but one 'professor' amongst many 'first name last initial's is bound to stand out.
:As for the article, your version had much to recommend it but was sadly flawed. This site takes a firmly [[Creationist]] view, so you must have realized that the large block of confidently-presented 'evidence' for an evolutionary theory would be provocative; then you cap it with a needless quote from Dawkins, which is hard to take otherwise than as an affront.
:Speaking for myself, I'd welcome more information about the modern evolutionary view, but this isn't WP - information like that has to put properly in context and not given improper weight. If you want to improve the article, I suggest adding a bit at a time and discussing changes with other editors. Good luck. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::That doesn't justify removing evidence. It's factual information--that it disagrees with a certain fundamentalist world view is not my concern or that of any other scientist. Are you suggesting that we lie or distort information because it is not in accordance with our beliefs? Should we engage in [[liberal deceit]] and prevent the truth from being known? It's not only against the teachings of most modern religions to lie: it is also antithetical to the principles of modern society.[[User:Professor|Professor]] 19:37, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Professor, this website, by sheer virtue of this name will always prefer the conservative, american christian viewpoint to anything else. please keep that in mind.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:41, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Professor, please don't use words like 'lie' in such a cavalier fashion. I don't doubt that your additions were factual, but the presentation of facts matters a great deal, especially with such a controversial topic. Any discussion of evolutionary ideas must present both sides of the argument - your evolutionary additions are welcome, but the article as you left it was hopelessly biased towards the evolutionary side. No doubt your points can be added to the article, but each put in its proper context and discussed objectively. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball redux ==

First, I get the gin part, but dead birds? Do I even want to ask?

Second, I would appreciate it if someone higher than me here at CP would look at the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] entry for netball and gender bias. The part about the editor getting banned for his edits isn't true. He got banned for harassment and for reporting the main author of the WP netball article to her supposed real-life employer. Given the name of the person who added the entry to the CP bias article and who wrote the CP netball article (they used the name of an editor who actually was a supporter of the main author), I suspect either the banned editor or one of his friends couldn't let it go. They made sure to use one of the main author's edits, which then shows her name in the CP references.

I don't like sneaky nasty tricks and this one definitely has the feel of one to me. Thanks! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:35, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

:The dead birds are the (hopeful) consequence of shooting, a popular sport in the UK. As for the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] article, if I understand you correctly you're not objecting to the basic point of the entry, but to the way its worded? If that's the case I'd say go ahead and change the wording yourself. If your objections are more fundamental, the best thing to do is put a query on the talk page - even better, if you can see from the edit history who added it in the first place, a query on that editor's talk page - asking for clarification. I hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 11:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== Digestive System ==

Good morning. It *looks* as though you deleted my request for a citation (if not, I apologize for my mistake and would you please direct me to whoever did).

In the Article "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" under the heading "Digestive System" I recently added a request for a citation on the words "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." While I am a strong believer that the Bible is loaded with scientific foreknowledge, I believe this section needs a scientific or medical citation to uphold it as valid as (a) all medical/scientific writings I have read on the matter encourage handwashing before eating and (b) Jesus was talking about the uselessness of CEREMONY - not WASHING.

(Personally, I believe the section should be deleted completely, but Andy Schlafley believes otherwise. As he has stated to me that we resolve arguments with reason in here, a citation is a reasonable request. To say "Because Andy Schlafley says so" is not "reason" nor a medical or scientific argument.)

Kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:21, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-13T11:11:49Z

Spotsbunch: /* Digestive System */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Eighth Day Blood Clotting Factors===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

(God's hygiene laws were for the purpose of health - NOT ceremony. In Matthew 15:2, Jesus spoke against the ritual hand-washing exercise which the Pharisees had added to the law and were not part of the cleanliness laws he had personally provided to Moses.)

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.<ref>Citation needed - please quote some scientific or medical journal which supports this</ref>

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-13T11:09:39Z

Spotsbunch: /* Digestive System */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Eighth Day Blood Clotting Factors===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

(God's hygiene laws were for the purpose of health - NOT ceremony. In Matthew 15:2, Jesus spoke against the ritual hand-washing exercise which the Pharisees had added to the law and were not part of the cleanliness laws he had personally provided to Moses.)

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.<ref>Citation needed</ref>

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-12T02:28:39Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

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

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

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

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

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

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

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

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-11T22:48:47Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

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

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

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

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

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

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

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

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-11T22:47:08Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

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

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

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

Obviously, if *you* object, I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:46, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

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

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

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

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

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-10T20:40:53Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

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

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

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

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

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

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

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

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-05T23:37:00Z

Spotsbunch: /* Blood Clotting */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Eighth Day Blood Clotting Factors===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

(God's hygiene laws were for the purpose of health - NOT ceremony. In Matthew 15:2, Jesus spoke against the ritual hand-washing exercise which the Pharisees had added to the law and were not part of the cleanliness laws he had personally provided to Moses.)

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-05T12:38:44Z

Spotsbunch: /* Lifespan */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Blood Clotting===

In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

(God's hygiene laws were for the purpose of health - NOT ceremony. In Matthew 15:2, Jesus spoke against the ritual hand-washing exercise which the Pharisees had added to the law and were not part of the cleanliness laws he had personally provided to Moses.)

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-05T01:03:59Z

Spotsbunch: /* Hygiene */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

(God's hygiene laws were for the purpose of health - NOT ceremony. In Matthew 15:2, Jesus spoke against the ritual hand-washing exercise which the Pharisees had added to the law and were not part of the cleanliness laws he had personally provided to Moses.)

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-05T00:59:47Z

Spotsbunch: /* Hygiene */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

It should be noted that God's hygiene laws were practical and for the purpose of health - NOT ceremony. Jesus spoke against the ritual hand-washing exercise which was part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations in Matthew 15:2.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-05T00:40:53Z

Spotsbunch: /* Hygiene */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-05T00:39:51Z

Spotsbunch: /* Digestive System */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Hygiene ===

God the Son mandated hygiene laws and gave them to Moses (Leviticus 15) millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century. God's hygiene laws included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-07-04T23:04:37Z

Spotsbunch: /* Leprosy and Contagion */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science|scientific]] knowledge far ahead of its time. ''Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible.''

[[Bible denier]]s -- such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists -- engage in [[liberal denial]] about the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]].

== Geology ==

===Flood===
Modern scientists long opposed a young earth [[creation|created]] by God and the suggestion that cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] as described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood did indeed occur. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>http://www.iafi.org/floods.html</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was first proposed by a creationist in 1859 based on Genesis 1:9-10, which implies that all of dry land was in one place.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#1</ref> [[Atheists]] mocked the concept for about 100 years, until finally accepting its truth.

=== Underwater springs ===

Only in moderns times have scientists become aware of enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans.

But the Bible repeatedly describes this thousands of years earlier: "on that very day '''''the deep subcrustal springs were broken open''''', and the windows of the sky were thrown open." ([[Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29#Chapter_7|Genesis 7:11 (CBP)]], emphasis added). And again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible says, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered ...." ([[KJV]])

== History ==

The Bible describes a [[Great Flood]] occurring around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries atheists have denied its possibility.

In 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered: a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, due to an extraordinary ice storm in the [[Alps]]. By scientific dating the occurrence of this massive ice storm in the mountains (and rainstorm below) was 5300 years ago.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html</ref>

==Health, Biology and Medicine==

===Lifespan===

The Bible put the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving many of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest Human Ancestor===

The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor -- [[Eve]] -- first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the oldest common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===

The first operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia -- thousands of years before anesthesia was developed by William Mortan in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21, they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Quarantining Against Leprosy Epidemics ===

Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), God the Son provided Moses with quarantine laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

=== Digestive System ===

It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

=== Feasibility of [[Abiogenesis]] ===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

=== Awareness while Unborn ===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling, awareness began while unborn.

=== The significance of blood ===

The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.

=== Menstruation ===

The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>

==Cosmology==

===UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life===

For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of Stars===

The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22 ([[CBP]])}}

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Darkness, and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation ===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

=== Meteoroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

=== Space flight ===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref>, in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to have been "stretched out".

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

=== Water cycle ===

The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that!
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

== Physics ==

=== Light and Color ===

Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

=== Action-at-a-distance ===

[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

=== Quantum Mechanics ===

==== Observation of the Wave Function ====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

The miraculous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

==== [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] ====

Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later: [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

==== Wave-Particle Duality ====

Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not. Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

==== Quantum tunneling ====

[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

=== Classical Relativity ===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

=== Modern Relativity ===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown in recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

=== [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] ===

The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

=== The nature of air ===

Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 says "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

== Mathematics ==

=== [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] ===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

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

== Zoology ==

===Inability of Animals to Understand Morality===

[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. Despite denial by [[evolutionists]], no animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>

=== Giant sea creatures and Jonah ===

The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material.

Then, in 2010, scientists were astonished to find the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves
*a functioning laptop accessing ''Conservapedia'' (just kidding about this last item)

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

==Linguistics==

===Common Descent?===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew Writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

== Economics ==

Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion) - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]] - and stripes of linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."'', [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by '''Valerian Krasinski''': ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Australia

2011-07-04T14:42:54Z

Spotsbunch: /* Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders */

{{Country
|name =''Commonwealth of Australia''
|map =Australia rel 1999.jpg
|map2 =Australia location.png
|flag =Flag of Australia.png
|arms =Australia coat-of-arms.jpg
|capital =Canberra
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Julia Gillard
|pm-raw =
|area =2,988,888 sq mi
|pop =21.8 million
|pop-basis =2009
|gdp =A$1.17 trillion
|gdp-year =2009
|gdp-pc =A$36,000
|currency =Australian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
The [[Commonwealth]] of Australia is an independent nation that occupies the continent of Australia, with its west coast on the [[Indian Ocean]], east coast on the [[Pacific Ocean]] facing [[New Zealand]], southern coast on the [[Southern Ocean]] facing [[Antarctica]], and northern coast bordering [[Indonesia]] and [[Papua New Guinea]]. Australia is considered geographically as part of [[Oceania]], but has been establishing its place politically and commercially in [[Southeast Asia]].

Socially and politically, it bears many similarities to the [[United States of America]].

==Geography==
[[File:Sydney harbour bridge.jpg|thumb|370px|Sydney harbour bridge.]]
Australia is the only country to occupy an entire continent<ref>This refers just to the Australian mainland. Some authorities now include [[Papua New Guinea]], [[New Zealand]], and various other [[Pacific Ocean]] islands in the continent of "Oceania". See [http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>, the smallest of the planet's seven continents.<ref>Some people count six, combining North and South America or Europe and Asia. See [http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm WorldAtlas.com].</ref>
It is 2,400 miles, (3,860 km) from east to west and 2,000 miles (3,220 km) from north to south, and covers an area of 2,967,877 sq miles (7,686,810 sq km). The Australian coastline is 22,812 miles long (36,735 kilometers), roughly the size as the mainland 48 states of the USA.
{{Clear}}

====The States and Territories of Australia====
[[File:State Library of Victoria Australia.jpg|thumb|220px|Melbourne, State Library of Victoria.]]
Australia has six states and three internal territories. The states are:
* [[New South Wales]]
* [[Victoria]]
* [[Queensland]]
* [[Western Australia]]
* [[South Australia]]
* [[Tasmania]]
The internal territories are:
* The [[Northern Territory]] (responsible government since 1978)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] (responsible government since 1988) which is the location of Australia's capital city, [[Canberra]].
* [[Jervis Bay Territory]] (small, not much there, generally forgotten about)
The external territories are:
* [[Christmas Island]]
* [[Norfolk Island]]
* [[Australian Antarctic Territory]]
* [[Coral Sea Islands]]
* [[Ashmore and Cartier Islands]]
* [[Cocos (Keeling) Islands]]
* [[Heard Island and McDonald Islands]]
{{Clear}}

====Low density====
80% of Australia's population, live on the coast line. It is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries (2.7 people per square kilometre)<ref>[http://www.abs.gov.au ABS]</ref>. Water is scarce and most cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

====Weather====
Weather extremes are common in Australia with temperatures sometimes measured into the high 40s Celsius (45 degrees Celsius = 113 degrees Fahrenheit). The city of Darwin was heavily damaged by Cyclone Tracy on Dec. 25, 1974, killing 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

Bush fires often ravage the southern states - one of the worst occurring on Ash Wednesday in 1983 when over 2,000 homes were destroyed and over 70 people lost their lives in Victoria and South Australia. In 2009 severe fires hit much of Victoria, worsened by hot dry winds and a severe drought.

====Flora and fauna====
Australia is noted for its unique biodiversity. Many animals are found only in Australia, the most well known examples are the group of marsupials ([[kangaroo]]s, [[wombat]]s, [[wallaby|wallabies]] and [[koala]]s), and the only two [[monotremes]], the [[platypus]] and the [[echidna]]. Examples of plants that are native to Australia are the [[banksia]], [[yellow wattle]] and [[gum tree]].

Current evolutionary studies indicate that Australia's unique wildlife is the result of Australia becoming an island, being cut off from the Asian land bridge between 40,000 and 250,000 years ago on the [[Uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian timescale]].

==People==
===Demographics===
[[File:Australian fishing family.jpg|right|270px]]
Although Australia has scarcely more than three people per square kilometer, it is one of the world's most urbanized countries. Less than 2.5% of the population lives in remote or very remote areas.
*Population (2010 est.): 22.27 million. <ref>http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 Australian Bureau of Statistics</ref>
*Annual population growth rate: 1.7%.
*Ethnic groups: European 92%, Asian 6%, Aboriginal 2%.
*Religions (2006): Catholic 26%, Anglican 19%, other Christian 19%, other non-Christian 1%, Buddhist 2.1%, Islam 1.7%, no religion 19%, and not stated 12%.
*Languages: English.
*Education: Years compulsory--to age 16 in all states and territories except New South Wales and the Northern Territory where it is 15, and Western Australia where it is 17. Literacy--over 99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--4.7/1,000. Life expectancy--males 78 yrs., females 83 yrs.
*Work force (10.8 million): Agriculture--3.3%; mining--1.5%; manufacturing--9.8%; retail trade--11.3%; public administration, defense, and safety--6%; construction--9.2%

===Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders===
Australia's indigenous inhabitants are a hunting-gathering people collectively referred to today as Aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders (ATSI). Although evolutionary theorists purport that native Australians arrived more than 40,000 years ago, this view rejects the Biblical account of Noah as historic and is is based on the old-earth paradigm. Aborigines arrived in Australia some time after the events at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Although their technical culture remained static--depending on wood, bone, and stone tools and weapons--their spiritual and social life was highly complex. Most spoke several languages, and confederacies sometimes linked widely scattered tribal groups. Indigenous population density ranged from one person per square mile along the coasts to one person per 35 square miles in the arid interior. When Captain James Cook claimed Australia for Great Britain in 1770, the native population is estimated to have numbered between 318,000 and 750,000 in as many as 500 tribes speaking many different languages. In 2006 the indigenous population was approximately 517,200, representing about 2.5% of the population. Since the end of World War II, the government and the public have made efforts to be more responsive to aboriginal rights and needs, most recently with Prime Minister Rudd's historic apology to the indigenous people in February 2008.

===Immigrants===
Immigration has been vital to Australia's development since the beginning of European settlement in 1788. Originally used as a prison for [[convicts]], the discovery of gold in [[Victoria]] convinced many to come to Australia. For generations, most settlers came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still predominantly of British or Irish origin, with a culture and outlook similar to those of Americans. A [["White Australia" policy]] operated from 1901 to the 1960s; it encouraged immigration by Europeans and blocked almost all other immigration.

The Chinese who arrived in the late 19th century to work in the gold mines left voluntarily or were expelled. Likewise most of the "Kanakas" --Polynesians--who came to work in the sugar fields were expatriated after 1901. Many Germans settled in South Australia, but those without Australian citizenship were put in camps during World War I and most were sent back to Germany after the war.

===Recent trends===
[[File:Sydney.jpg|thumb|left|320px|Sydney skyline from Taronga Zoo.]]
Since the end of World War II, Australia's population has more than doubled.

Non British/Irish immigration has increased significantly since World War II through an extensive, planned immigration program. Since 1945 around 6.6 million migrants have settled in Australia, including 690,000 refugee and humanitarian entrants. About 80% have remained; 24%--almost one in four--of Australians are foreign-born. Britain, Ireland, Italy, Greece, New Zealand, and the former Yugoslavia were the largest sources of post-war immigration, but New Zealand is closing on Britain as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia.

The barriers against Asians fell in the 1970s and thousands of immigrants from the Chinese diaspora resettled in Australia. Immigrants from India and the Philippines were numerous as well.

====Refugees====
Australia's humanitarian and refugee program of about 13,000 per year is in addition to other immigration programs. In recent years, refugees from Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have comprised the largest element in Australia's refugee program.

====Religion====
Australia is a [[secular]] nation, in that it has no established religion associated with the Government.

According to the 2006 census, 64% of citizens consider themselves to be Christian, including 26% Roman Catholic, 19% Anglican, and 19% other Christian. Buddhists constitute 2.1% of the population, Muslims 1.7%, Hindus 0.7%, Jews 0.4%, and all others professing a religion 0.5%. Of Australia's 21 million people, about 1.5 million attend weekly religious services <ref>[http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250&track=82083| National Church Life Survey 2004]; U.S. State Department, "International Religious Freedom Report 2008" [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108400.htm online]</ref>.
[[File:Ballarat Hebrew Congregation Australia.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Ballarat Hebrew Congregation.]]
In 1911, during the first census, 96% identified themselves as Christian. In recent decades traditional Christian denominations have seen their total number and proportion of affiliates stagnate or decrease significantly, although from 2001 to 2006, the total number of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians increased by 12.9%. Over the past decade, increased immigration from Southeast Asia and the Middle East considerably expanded the numbers of citizens who identify themselves as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and increased the ethnic diversity of existing Christian denominations. Between 2001 and 2006, the numbers increased for Buddhists by 17% (to 418,000), Muslims by 21% (to 340,393), Jews by 6% (to 89,000), and Hindus by 55% (to 148,131). In 2006 approximately 18.7% of citizens considered themselves to have no religion, up from 17% in 2001, and 11.2% made no statement regarding religious affiliation. According to a 2002 survey, 23% of adults had participated in church or religious activities during the previous 3 months.

The Australian public school system is "free, secular and compulsory" with the secular meaning without favor to any particular religion. Schools are required to offer religious instruction at the primary level, but are not allowed to discriminate between religions. The state systems of a number of states offer studies in religion at the senior level.

There is a large Catholic school system in Australia with most parishes having their own primary school and many hundreds of Catholic high schools across the country. There are also a large number of independent schools founded by various religions or denominations of the Christian faith - some hold that religious background to be more important than others. All schools, state or religious, receive government funding, as funding is provided for every student that is an Australian resident.

At the time of European settlement, aboriginal inhabitants followed religions that were animistic, involving belief in spirits behind the forces of nature and the influence of ancestral spirit beings. According to the 2006 census, 5,206 persons, or less than 0.03% of respondents, reported practicing aboriginal traditional religions, down from 5,244 in 2001. The 2006 census reported that almost 64% of Aborigines identify themselves as Christian and 20% listed no religion.

====Culture====
[[Image:Sidney opera house.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Sydney Opera House, an iconic symbol of the nation]]
Much of Australia's culture is derived from European roots, but distinctive Australian features have evolved from the environment, [[Indigenous Australians|Aboriginal]] culture, and the influence of Australia's neighbors. The vigor and originality of the arts in Australia--film, opera, music, painting, theater, dance, and crafts--have achieved international recognition.

Australian actors and comedians such as Nicole Kidman, Rachel Griffiths, Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Paul Hogan, Hugh Jackman, the late Heath Ledger, and Dame Edna Everage (Barry Humphries) have achieved enormous popularity in the United States. Directors such as Peter Weir, Philip Noyes, and Russell Mulcahy, the conductor Sir Charles Mackerras, and singers and musicians such as Olivia Newton-John, Men At Work, The Wiggles, AC/DC, Dame Joan Sutherland, Dame Nellie Melba, and Kylie Minogue are well known.

Australian artists with international reputations include Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Pro Hart, and Arthur Boyd. Writers who have achieved world recognition include Thomas Keneally, Colleen McCullough, Nevil Shute, Morris West, Jill Ker Conway, Peter Carey, Robert Hughes, Germaine Greer, and Nobel Prize winner Patrick White.

====Sports====
[[File:Melbourne Cup Australia.jpg|left|200px|thumb|[[Melbourne]] Cup.]]
Australia is known as a sporting nation with success worldwide in [[swimming]], [[tennis]], [[rugby union]], [[cricket]], [[netball]],and [[basketball]]. Australians are very keen horse racers with the Melbourne Cup <ref>[http://www.melbournecup.com.au| Melbourne Cup]</ref> attracting up to 120,000 spectators at Flemington Race Course on the first Tuesday in November. There is a public holiday for the cup race in Melbourne, while the remainder of the country virtually pauses during the running.

Unique to Australia is a game known as [[Australian rules football]] or Aussie Rules, which is played on a [[cricket]] oval in winter. Australian rules football is the sport most attended in the states of [[Victoria]], [[South Australia]] and [[Western Australia]], and most attended overall in Australia; in 2006 2.5 million people had attended at least one Aussie Rules game in the preceding 12 months.[http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/1F8FAC9C2C7B1623CA2568A900139417?OpenDocument] Australian Rules Football was written by persons educated at the [[Rugby School]] in England and [[Cambridge University]] before the organisation of uniform football codes. It is not as popular in [[New South Wales]] and [[Queensland]] although premiership teams are based in these two states.

The other national football code is [[rugby league]]. Rugby league football is the most attended sport in New South Wales and Queensland with its premier club competition being the [[National Rugby League]].

====Tourism====
[[File:Anzac Memorial Sydney Australia 2007.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Anzac Memorial, Sydney, 2007.]]
Most tourists visit places such as Sydney Harbour, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Central Australia and the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland. Other favourite destinations are the wine making areas of South Australia and northern Victoria, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria, the natural wonders of Tasmania and the huge outback expanses of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Some cattle stations in Australia rival Texas in size and the distance between towns in some areas is enormous.

==Government==
Australia became a federated nation on January 1, 1901 under the [[Constitution of Australia]], and all former British colonies became states. The parliament met in [[Melbourne]] until the infrastructure was built for the capital city, [[Canberra]].

Australia has a [[Parliament|parliamentary system]] of government based on the British system with a [[bicameral]] system meeting as the [[Parliament of Australia]], consisting of the [[Australian House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate]]. Each state and territory also has its own parliament.

The two other branches of government under the Constitution are the Executive ([[Governor-General of Australia]] taking advice from the Ministers) and the [[judicial]].

Australia is a democracy which has allowed men of European descent to vote since federation, with women gaining the vote in 1902 and Aboriginal men and women gaining suffrage in 1962. Voting is compulsory for all citizens who are 18 years old and over (with a few exceptions.)

Australia's Head of Government is the [[Prime Minister of Australia]]. In June 2010, [[Julia Gillard]] became the first female Prime Minister after she defeated [[Kevin Rudd]] in a partyroom leadership challenge.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gillard ousts Rudd in bloodless coup |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2935500.htm|accessdate=24 June 2010|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=24 June 2010}}</ref>

The Head of State is [[Queen Elizabeth II]], the Queen of Australia (who is the same person, but a different title, as the Queen of Great Britain.) Under the Constitution, and in practice, the authority of the Head of State is vested in the [[Governor-General of Australia]], currently Quentin Bryce AC, Previously Governor of [[Queensland]], who assents to acts of parliament, is the Commander in Chief of the military forces, and appoints all Ministers of the Government; all these various powers are normally exercised on advice from the Prime Minister.

The Government of Australia is exercised, day-to-day, by the Ministers through their various Departments of State.

====Voting====
{{main|Voting in Australia}}

Australia has [[preferential voting]], and voting is compulsory for adults (18 years and over), unless they have been deemed unfit to vote, either by mental illness or conviction for serious offenses. Preferential voting encourages a multiplicity of parties and independent candidates, and counting the votes and allocating preferences can take some time where the results are close.

====Terms====
A Member of Parliament in the House of Representatives is elected for a maximum of three years, but the timing of elections is decided by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par3cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part III |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> A Member of Parliament in the Senate is typically elected for six years.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm |title=Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 1 Part II |accessdate=2010-10-13}}</ref> The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of Representatives, and the tenure is not limited by statute. Ministers may continue to serve for up to three months when not a Member or Senator, but must in that time be elected in order to continue. ([[John Gorton]] was a Senator when appointed leader of his party after the death of his predecessor. He immediately resigned from the Senate and stood for election to the House of Representatives, while remaining Prime Minister throughout.)

====Parliamentary political parties====
Currently, the main political parties in Australia are:
* [[Australian Greens]]
* [[Australian Labor Party]]
* [[Family First Party]]
* [[Liberal Party of Australia]]
* [[National Party of Australia]]
* One Nation Party
[[File:Australian house of representatives.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Australian house of representatives.]]
Despite the US connotation associated with the name, the Liberal Party is conservative in political stance. Robert Menzies helped found the Liberal Party in 1944 and was the Prime Minister from 1939 until 1941 and then again from 1949 until 1966.<ref> [http://www.liberals.net/liberalpartyhistory.htm History of the Liberal Party in Australia]</ref> The term "liberal" refers to the party's predominantly-[[free market|free-market]] approach to [[economics|economic management]].

The party currently in power is the [[Australian Labor Party]]. The Labor Party is also in government in all of the states and territories. The Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.

Conservative Queensland polititian and businesswoman, Pauline Hanson formed the One Nation party to give a conservative voice to voters that were not being effectivly represented by the major partys. One Nation has held seats in both the Federal Senate and Lower House, and have been the subject of ridicule by left-leaning media commentators.

Though the Labor party is "social democratic" and the Liberals are "liberal conservatives", some of the smaller parties are more left leaning or more conservative than Labor and Liberal respectively.

''See also a [[list of Prime Ministers of Australia]].''

The Prime Minister of Australia is the most senior elected person in the country. The role is normally filled by the parliamentary leader of the party which forms the government.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Governor General--Quentin Bryce
*Prime Minister--Julia Gillard
*Deputy Prime Minister--Wayne Swan
*Treasurer--Wayne Swan
*Foreign Minister--Kevin Rudd
*Defense Minister--Stephen Smith
*Trade Minister--Craig Emerson

===Political Conditions===
Three political parties dominate the center of the Australian political spectrum. The Liberal Party (LP), nominally representing urban business interests, and its smaller coalition partner, The Nationals, nominally representing rural interests, are the more conservative parties. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominally represents workers, trade unions, and left-of-center groups. While the ALP, founded by labor unions, traditionally had been moderately socialist in its policies and approaches to social issues, today it is best described as a social democratic party. All political groups are tied by tradition to welfare programs. Over the last decade, Australia has increased welfare payments to families while imposing obligations on those receiving unemployment benefits and disability pensions. There is strong bipartisan sentiment on many international issues, including Australia's commitment to its alliance with the United States.
[[File:Protests in front of Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
The ALP, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, defeated the Liberal/National coalition, led by then-Prime Minister John Howard, in the November 24, 2007 election. The ALP now holds 83 seats in the House of Representatives, against 64 for the Liberal/National coalition, and 3 independents. The composition of the Senate is 37 seats for the coalition, 32 for the ALP, five seats for the Greens, one for Family First, and one independent.

The ALP won the election with a message promising "new leadership" after 11 years of the Howard government. Rudd portrayed himself as an "economic conservative," while criticizing unpopular Howard government policies on workplace relations reform, climate change, and the war on Iraq. The Rudd government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the international community on combating climate change. It is undoing some labor market reforms instituted by the Howard government, such as statutory individual contracts. The Australian government's foreign policy shows strong continuity with that of its predecessors, stressing relations with four key countries: the United States, Japan, China, and Indonesia. The Rudd government strongly supports U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region and increased Australia’s troop contribution in Afghanistan. It withdrew Australia's combat troops from Iraq in 2008; it intends to end its military mission in Iraq on July 31, 2009.

Australia has been an active participant in international affairs since federation in 1901, and Australian forces have fought beside the United States and other Allies in every significant conflict since World War I. On January 8, 1940, the governments of the United States and Australia announced the establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations. In 1944, Australia concluded an agreement with New Zealand dealing with the security, welfare, and advancement of the people of the independent territories of the Pacific (the ANZAC pact). After World War II, Australia played a role in the Far Eastern Commission in Japan and supported Indonesian independence during that country's revolt against the Dutch. Australia was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the South Pacific Commission, and the Colombo Plan. In addition to contributing to UN forces in Korea--it was the first country to announce it would do so after the United States--Australia sent troops to assist in putting down the 1948-1960 communist revolt in Malaya and later to combat the 1963-1965 Indonesian-supported invasion of Sarawak. The United States, Australia, and New Zealand signed the ANZUS Treaty in 1951, which remains Australia's pre-eminent formal security treaty alliance. Australia sent troops to assist South Vietnamese and U.S. forces in Vietnam, and joined coalition forces in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003.

Australia has been active in the Australia-New Zealand-U.K. agreement and the Five-Power Defense Arrangements--successive arrangements with Britain and New Zealand to ensure the security of Singapore and Malaysia.

One of the drafters of the UN Charter, Australia has given firm support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It was last a member of the Security Council in 1985-86, a member of the Economic and Social Council for 1986-89, and a member of the UN Human Rights Commission for 1994-96 and 2003-2005. Australia recently declared its intention to seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2013-2014. Australia takes a prominent part in many other UN activities, including peacekeeping, nonproliferation and disarmament negotiations, and narcotics control. Australia also is active in meetings of the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government and the Pacific Islands Forum, and has been a leader in the Cairns Group--countries pressing for agricultural trade reform in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations--and in founding the APEC forum. In 2002, Australia joined the International Criminal Court.

Australia has devoted particular attention to relations between developed and developing nations, with emphasis on the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the island states of the South Pacific. Australia is an active participant in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which promotes regional cooperation on security issues, and has been a member of the East Asia Summit since its inauguration in 2005. In September 1999, acting under a UN Security Council mandate, Australia led an international coalition to restore order in East Timor upon Indonesia's withdrawal from that territory. In 2006, Australia participated in an international peacekeeping operation in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Australia led a regional mission to restore law and order in Solomon Islands in 2003 and again in 2006. Australia is part of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which also includes the United States.

The government is committed to increasing official development assistance to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-2016. Australia budgeted A$3.79 billion (U.S. $3.03 billion) for FY 2008-2009 and has budgeted A$3.82 billion (U.S. $3.05 billion) for FY 2009-2010. The Australian aid program is currently concentrated in Southeast Asia (Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the largest recipients) and the Pacific Islands. Selected aid flows are allocated to Africa, South Asia, and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. Contributions to multilateral organizations and other expenses account for about one-third of the foreign assistance budget.

===ANZUS and Defense===
The Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) security treaty was concluded at San Francisco on September 1, 1951, and entered into force on April 29, 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It committed them to consult in the event of a threat and, in the event of attack, to meet the common danger in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.
[[File:Canberra Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Canberra.]]
In 1984, the nature of the ANZUS alliance changed after the Government of New Zealand refused access to its ports by nuclear-weapons-capable and nuclear-powered ships of the U.S. Navy. The United States suspended defense obligations to New Zealand, and annual bilateral meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister replaced annual meetings of the ANZUS Council of Foreign Ministers. The first bilateral meeting was held in Canberra in 1985. At the second, in San Francisco in 1986, the United States and Australia announced that the United States was suspending its treaty security obligations to New Zealand pending the restoration of port access. Since 1985, U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers have held 20 Australia-U.S. Ministerial consultations (AUSMIN), alternating between Australia and the United States. The next AUSMIN is scheduled to take place in Australia in 2010.

The U.S.-Australia alliance under the ANZUS Treaty remains in full force. AUSMIN meetings are supplemented by consultations between the U.S. Combatant Commander, Pacific and the Australian Chief of Defense Force. There also are regular civilian and military consultations between the two governments at lower levels.

ANZUS has no integrated defense structure or dedicated forces. However, in fulfillment of ANZUS obligations, Australia and the United States conduct a variety of joint activities. These include military exercises ranging from naval and landing exercises at the task-group level to battalion-level special forces training to numerous smaller-scale exercises, assigning officers to each other's armed services, and standardizing, where possible, equipment and operational doctrine. The two countries also operate joint defense facilities in Australia.

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, then-Prime Minister Howard and U.S. President George W. Bush jointly invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first time on September 14, 2001. Australia was one of the earliest participants in Operation Enduring Freedom. Australian Defense Forces participated in coalition military action against Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Australian combat forces began their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-2008 and forces are to be fully removed by July 2009. Australia has approximately 1,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and also provides significant development and capacity building assistance to the country. Based on growing defense commitments, Australia decided to increase the Australian Army from 26,000 to 30,000 over the next several years. This will enable the reestablishment of two infantry battalions, as well as enabling troops, such as a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) unit.

The Australian Government has stated its intention to maintain its investment in future capability of the Australian Defense Force (ADF). To do so, the government has committed to a 3% annual growth in real defense funding through 2018--and 2.2% annual real growth beyond--to ensure the ADF can continue to meet capability and interoperability goals. The Australian Defense Force numbers about 54,000 active duty personnel, with planned increases to 57,000 within the next decade. The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) front-line fleet currently includes 12 frigates, including 4 of the Adelaide class and 8 Australian-built ANZAC class. In August 2004, Australia selected the Aegis Combat Control System for its three air warfare destroyers (AWD), which will start coming into service in 2014. The F/A-18 fighter, built in Australia under license from the U.S. manufacturer, is the principal combat aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force, backed by the U.S.-built F-111 strike aircraft. In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Additionally, the Australian Government signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development MOU in 2006. Australia is projected to buy up to 100 JSF aircraft with deliveries starting in 2013 and running through 2020. The F-111 strike aircraft are scheduled to exit service by 2010 and will be replaced by 24 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters as an interim strike capability with deliveries commencing in 2010. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) took delivery of the last aircraft in its buy of 4 Lockheed C-17 strategic airlift aircraft in 2008. In addition, Boeing will provide the Commonwealth of Australia's RAAF with an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system based on the Next-Generation 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Recent U.S. sales to the Australian Army include the M1A1 AIM tank, as well as Hellfire and JAVELIN munitions. Future opportunities include CH-47 helicopter replacements, navy helicopter replacements, light and medium cargo aircraft replacements and artillery systems.

In May 2009, the Australian Government released its Defense White Paper, outlining Australia’s long-term strategic outlook. In addition to buying the JSF aircraft, the White Paper proposes to double Australia’s submarine fleet to 12, replace the ANZAC class frigates, and replace the army’s armored personnel carriers.

==Economy==
[[Image:Melbourne tram 250.jpg|thumb|220px|A Melbourne tram.]]
For more see: [[Australian economy]]

Since the 1980s, Australia has undertaken significant structural reform of its economy and has transformed itself from an inward-looking, highly protected, and regulated marketplace to an open, internationally competitive, export-oriented economy. Key economic reforms included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers to free trade, floating the Australian dollar, deregulating the financial services sector, including liberalizing access for foreign banks, increasing flexibility in the labor market, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency between the federal and state branches of government, privatizing many government-owned monopolies, and reforming the taxation system, including introducing a broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) and large reductions in income tax rates.
[[File:Salamanca-Market-2008 Australia.jpg|left|320px]]
Australia enjoys a higher standard of living than any G7 country other than the United States. Australia's economic standing in the world is a result of a commitment to best-practice macroeconomic policy settings, including the delegation of the conduct of monetary policy to the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and a broad acceptance of prudent fiscal policy where the government aims for fiscal balance over the economic cycle. Largely due to the fall in revenue as a result of the global economic downturn, net government debt is projected to reach about A$188 billion (U.S. $150.4 billion) in four years. The previous government, drawing from budget surpluses, created the “Future Fund” to provide for future liabilities resulting from the retirement of civil servants. The Government of Australia is predicting negative 0.5% growth in the 2009-2010 fiscal year; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicted growth to be negative 1.4% for 2009.

Over 2008, unemployment has risen to around 5.5% from 4.2%, and the labor market participation has remained at around 65%. Both the federal and state governments have recognized the need to invest heavily in water, transport, ports, telecommunications, and education infrastructure to expand Australia's supply capacity. The largest river system in Australia, the Murray-Darling, and related coastal lakes and wetlands in South Australia are critically threatened and the government has developed a plan to improve irrigation infrastructure and efficiency and buy back unused water allocations along the river.
*GDP (2009-2010 estimate): A$1.17 trillion (U.S. $893.6 billion).
*Inflation rate (year to March 2009): 2.5% per annum.
*Reserve Bank official interest rate (May 2009): 3.00%.
*Trade: Exports ($178.9 billion, 2008 estimate)--coal, iron ore, gold, meat, wool, alumina, wheat, machinery and transport equipment. Major markets--Japan, China, South Korea, U.S. ($10.7 billion), and New Zealand. Imports ($187.2 billion, 2008 estimate)--machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines, telecommunication equipment and parts; crude oil and petroleum products. Major suppliers--China, United States ($23.96 billion), Japan, Singapore, and Germany.
*Exchange rate (May 2011): U.S. $1.05 = A$1

====Energy====
[[File:Energy 500kv-power-lines Australia.jpg|right|400px]]
Australia is rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves. Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by coal, which fuels most of the country’s power generation. Petroleum accounts for a large share of energy consumption, but due to declining output, Australia is facing a growing dependence on petroleum imports. Over the past two decades, Australia has steadily consumed increasing amounts of natural gas, which is likely to continue over the medium term.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, "Australia" (2009) [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html online]</ref>

Australia is one of the four countries (along with Norway, Canada and Mexico) belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

In July 2005, the Australian government formed the Australian Energy Regulator (AER). The AER is responsible for economic regulation in Australian energy markets. In addition, the AER promotes investment in the energy sector to ensure supply security, while monitoring prices faced by end users. In 2006, Australia’s 13 government bodies transferred energy regulation responsibility to the AER. The AER is seeking $23 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 15 years.

====Comparing Australian and U.S. Economic and Health statistics====
Whilst the Australian society is similar in many aspects to those of the U.S., a comparison of key economic (in $U.S.) and health indicators highlights some interesting fundamental differences:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !!Australia!!U.S.
|-
| '''GDP Per Capita'''
| $32,900.00
| $43,500.00
|-
| '''Budget Deficit/Surplus''' Per capita
| $444.00 surplus. Australia has had budget surpluses every year since 2001
| $841.00 deficit
|-
| '''Public Debt'''
| 14.1% of GDP
| 64.7% of GDP
|-
| '''Military Expenditure'''
| 2.5 % of GDP
| 4.06% of GDP
|-
| '''Life Expectancy at Birth''' (combined male and female)
| 80.5 years
| 77.85 years
|-
| '''Infant Mortality Rates''' deaths/1,000 live births
| 4.63
| 6.43
|-
| '''HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rates'''
| 0.1% of population
| 0.6% of population
|}
Australia has a universal health scheme and significant subsidies on most prescription medications.

== History==
''See main article [[History of Australia]]''

Australia was uninhabited until stone-culture peoples arrived, perhaps by boat across the waters separating the island from the Indonesia archipelago more than 40,000 years ago. Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and English explorers observed the island before 1770, when Captain Cook explored the east coast and claimed it for Great Britain.
[[File:Aboriginal art Australia.jpg|thumb|300px|Aboriginal art.]]
On January 26, 1788 (now celebrated as Australia Day), the so-called '''First Fleet''' landed at Sydney and the Colony of New South Wales was established. Many, but by no means all, of the first settlers were convicts, some condemned for offenses that today would often be thought trivial. From the mid-19th century convict transportation to Australia significantly declined; the last ship to arrive was in 1868. Many officers of the Royal Navy received grants and established large farms and ranches. Ranchers who used government lands for their herds of sheep were informally called "squatters"; despite the term, most were wealthy. The discovery of gold in 1851 led to increased immigration, wealth, and trade. A third of the new arrivals were Irish Catholics, and there emerged a political and cultural tension between them and the Protestant British.

The six colonies that became the states of the Australian Commonwealth were established in the following order: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. Settlement preceded these dates in most cases.

Negotiations between Australians and the government in London led Parliament to create the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' in 1900, effective January 1, 1901.

Australia came of age in World War I, when it supported the British war effort, and imprisoned German citizens living their. he great defeat at Gallipoli focused Australia's heroes self image.
[[File:UNMCK Australia.jpg|left|280px]]
In May 1927, the seat of government was transferred to Canberra, a planned city designed by American Walter Burley Griffin. Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on October 9, 1942 (with effect as of September 3, 1939), which officially established Australia's complete autonomy in both internal and external affairs and formalized a situation that had existed for years.<ref> The Australia Act (effective March 3, 1986) eliminated almost all remaining vestiges of British legal authority, including the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.</ref>

In World War II Australia again rallied to the British cause, but were left practically undefended when at fall of Singapore in 1942 the Japanese captured much of the Australian army. The rest of the army was rushed back from the Middle East to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. Britain was no help, so Australia turned, permanently, to the United States for its defense.

In practice the monarch is only symbolic--a symbol especially of ties to the [[British Empire]] that the Irish and new immigrants are unwilling to continue. In 1998,republicans were given a free hand to choose the form of republic they wanted. This was put to a referendum in 1999, and enjoyed strong support among the politicians and in the mainstream media. But a campaign led by a group, [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy ] resulted in the defeat of the referendum in all states and 72% of electorates. Republicans remain unable to agree on how to replace the present system--whether with a powerful elected president responsible directly to the people, or with a weak president chosen by the government (as in Germany), the model which was rejected in 1999 because of distrust of politicians.

== See also ==
* [[Australian dollar]]
* [[Currency#Australia|Currency: Australia]]

==Bibliography==

===References===
* Bambrick, Susan ed. ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Australia'' (1994)
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* O'Shane, Pat et al. ''Australia: The Complete Encyclopedia'' (2001)
* Shaw, John, ed. ''Collins Australian Encyclopedia'' (1984)
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949) [http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
[[File:Aussie1.jpg|thumb|280px]]
===Guides===
* ''Australia For Dummies'' by Marc Llewellyn and Lee Mylne. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Dummies-Travel-Marc-Llewellyn/dp/0470178345/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126338&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* '' Central Australia: Adelaide to Darwin'' by Charles Rawlings-Way and Meg Worby (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Central-Australia-Adelaide-Darwin-Regional/dp/1741046637/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-17 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Australia 2009'' by Lee Mylne et al. (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Australia-2009-Complete/dp/0470345446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Moon Living Abroad in Australia'' by James M. Lane (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Living-Abroad-Australia-James/dp/1598801392/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Australia'' by Margo Daly et al. (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Australia-Travel-Guides/dp/1848360738/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Vaisutis, Justine et al. ''Lonely Planet Sydney & New South Wales'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Country-Guide-Justine-Vaisutis/dp/174179160X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

===Economics and business===
* Kelly, Paul. ''The End of Certainty: Power, Politics and Business in Australia,'' (1994)
* McLean, Ian W. "Consumer Prices and Expenditure Patterns in Australia 1850-1914." ''Australian Economic History Review''(1999) 39(1): 1-28; includes a consumer price index (CPI) for the period 1850 to 1914. Issn: 0004-8992 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Moran, Anthony. ''Australia: Nation, Belonging, and Globalization'' Routledge, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108858937 online edition]
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===Environment and Geography===
* Appleton, Richard, and Barbara Appleton. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Australian Places'' (1993)
* Dovers, Stephen. ''Australian Environmental History: Essays & Cases'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Environmental-History-Essays-Cases/dp/0195534824/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Garden, Don. ''Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental Hisory.'' ABC-CLIO, 2005. 398 pp.
* Hutton, Drew, and Libby Connors. ''History of the Australian Environment Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Australian-Environment-Movement-Hutton/dp/052145686X/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Lines, William. ''Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia'' (1992)
*Powell JM . ''An Historical Geography of Modern Australia: The Restive Fringe''. (1988)
*Robinson GM, Loughran RJ, and Tranter PJ. ''Australia and New Zealand: economy, society and environment''.(2000)

===History===
see [[History of Australia]] for more detaile guide
* Atkinson, Alan. ''The Europeans in Australia: A History. Vol. 2: Democracy.'' (2005). 440 pp.
* Barker, Anthony. ''What Happened When: A Chronology of Australia from 1788.'' Allen & Unwin. 2000. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108433410 online edition]
* Basset, Jan. ''The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary of Australian History'' (1998)
* Bolton, Geoffrey. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 5: 1942-1995. The Middle Way'' (2005)
* Clarke, Frank G. ''The History of Australia'' (2002). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101344125 online edition]
* Davison, Graeme, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre, eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian History'' (2001) online at many academic libraries; also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-History/dp/019551503X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Day, David. ''Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia'' (2001);
* Edwards, John. ''Curtin's Gift: Reinterpreting Australia's Greatest Prime Minister,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108661368 online edition]
* Hughes, Robert. ''The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding'' (1988). [http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Robert-Hughes/dp/0099448548/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Kemp, Rod, and Marion Stanton, eds. ''Speaking for Australia: Parliamentary Speeches That Shaped Our Nation'' Allen & Unwin, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=110168653 online edition]
* Kingston, Beverley. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 3: 1860-1900 Glad, Confident Morning'' (1993)
* Kociumbas, Jan. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 2: 1770-1860 Possessions'' (1995)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''The Oxford History of Australia: Volume 4: 1901-42, the Succeeding Age'' (1993)
* Macintyre, Stuart. ''A Concise History of Australia'' (2nd. ed. 2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Australia-Cambridge-Histories/dp/0521735939/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254126389&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, A. W. ''Robert Menzies: A Life'' (2 vol 1993-99), online at ACLS e-books
* Megalogenis, George. ''The Longest Decade'' (2nd ed. 2009), politics 1990-2008
* Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward, eds. ''Australia's Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Australias-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199273731/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226788019&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Serle. Percival, ed. ''Dictionary of Australian Biography'' (1949)[http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/00-dict-biogIndex.html online edition]
* Taylor, Peter. ''The Atlas of Australian History'' (1991)
* Welsh, Frank. ;;Australia: A New History of the Great Southern Land'' (2008)

===International Relations and Military===
* Bridge, Carl ed., ''Munich to Vietnam: Australia's Relations with Britain and the United States since the 1930s,'' Melbourne University Press 1991
* Dennis, Peter, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, and Robin Prior. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History.'' 1996)
* Firth, Stewart. ''Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/108662470 online edition]
* Grant, Ian. ''A Dictionary of Australian Military History - from Colonial Times to the Gulf War'' (1992)
* Lee, David. ''Search for Security: The Political Economy of Australia's Postwar Foreign and Defence Policy'' (1995)
* McLean, David. "From British Colony to American Satellite? Australia and the USA during the Cold War," ''Australian Journal of Politics & History" (2006) 52 (1), 64–79. Rejects satellite model. [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2006.00408a.x online at Blackwell-Synergy]
* McLean, David. "Australia in the Cold War: a Historiographical Review." ''International History Review'' (2001) 23(2): 299-321. Issn: 0707-5332
* Murphy, John. ''Harvest of Fear: A History of Australia's Vietnam War'' (1993)
* Watt, Alan. ''The Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy 1938–1965,'' Cambridge University Press, 1967

===Culture and society===
* Bebbington, Warren. ''A Dictionary of Australian Music'' (1999)
* Bennett, Bruce et al. ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia'' (1999)
* Bennett, Tony, and David Carter. ''Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Australia-Reshaping-Australian-Institutions/dp/0521004039/ref=sr_1_47/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533775&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Breward, Ian. ''A History of the Churches in Australasia.'' (2002). 474 pp.
* Carey, Hilary. ''Believing in Australia: A Cultural History of Religions'' (1996)
* Horton, David. ''The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History, Society and Culture'' (2001)
* Huggan Graham. ''Postcolonialism, Racism, Transnationalism'' (Oxford Studies in Postcolonial Literatures) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Literature-Postcolonialism-Transnationalism-Postcolonial/dp/0199274622/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James, ed. ''The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins'' (2nd ed. 2002) 960pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521807891/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Jupp, James. ''The English in Australia'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521542952/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Kleinert, Sylvia. and Margo Neale. ''The Oxford Companion to Aboriginal Art and Culture'' (2001)
* Leitner, Gerhard. ''Australia's Many Voices: Australian English--the National Language'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/3110181940/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Love, J.W. ed. ''Australia and the Pacific Islands'' (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 9) (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Australia-Pacific-Islands-Garland-Encyclopedia/dp/0824060385/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193533487&sr=8-14 excerpt and text search]
* McAllister, Ian, Steve Dowrick, Riaz Hassan; ''The Cambridge Handbook of the Social Sciences in Australia'' Cambridge University Press, 2003 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108131347 online edition]
* McCulloch, Alan. ''Encyclopedia of Australian Art'' 2 vol (1984)
* McDonald, John. ''Federation: Australian Art and Society, 1901-2001. Natl. Gallery of Australia, 2002. 264 pp.
* Moran, Albert. ''Historical Dictionary of Australian Radio and Television'' (2007)
* Nile, Richard. ''The Making of the Australian Literary Imagination.'' (2002). 315 pp.
* Rickard, John, ''Australia: A Cultural History'' (1988)
* Webby, Elizabeth. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Australian-Literature-Companions/dp/0521658438/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Wilde, William H. et al eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature'' (1995) online at [[OUP]] [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Australian-Literature/dp/019553381X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209696680&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Oxford Literary History of Australia.''
* Samuels, Selina, ed. ''Australian Writers, 1915-50.'' (2002). 510 pp.
* Sayers, Andrew. ''Australian Art'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Art-Oxford-History/dp/0192842145/ref=sr_1_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193540375&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Webby, Elizabeth, ed. ''The Cambridge Companion to Australian Literature'' (2006)
* Wannan, Bill. ''A Dictionary of Australian Folklore: Lore, Legends, Myths and Traditions'' (1988)

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/auslitandhis.html Australia: Literature and History 136 e-books]

==External links==
* [http://www.fed.gov.au Australian Government portal]
* [http://www.aph.gov.au Australian Parliament House (Reps & Senate) portal]
* [http://www.gg.gov.au Governor-General of Australia]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/oceania.htm Australia and Oceania]
* [http://www.norepublic.com.au Australians for Constitutional Monarchy]
* [http://www.crownedrepublic.com.au The Crowned Republic ]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| Some of the text for this article is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Oceanian Countries]]
[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:Australia]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Bibliographies]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-05-15T03:42:54Z

Spotsbunch: /* A Thought */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

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

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

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

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

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

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

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

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-05-14T05:36:43Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-05-14T05:34:29Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

:::Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:34, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-05-14T05:33:21Z

Spotsbunch: /* Unclean hands and food */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

:::Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

:::Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

:::All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

:::Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

:::Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:32, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-05-14T03:01:29Z

Spotsbunch: /* Counter-argument */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of patogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of patogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appeas to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Feminism

2011-04-01T04:45:10Z

Spotsbunch: /* Other */

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' originally was an expression used by [[suffragettes]] - who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

Specifically, a modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities. Modern feminists:

* never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left<ref> [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no [[sex differences]]; therefore advocacy for [[equal rights]] must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)
* view traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably patriarchal
* belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html</ref><ref> "Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"] </ref>
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* seek [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying<ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref>
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-boxer-maamjun19,0,5804401.story</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s and the Women's Liberation (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own state versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts ordered the issuance of homosexual marriage licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court ordered taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized{{who}} for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for American Thinker, links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and Marx, is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the state."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', American Thinker], November 29, 2009</ref>

==Quotations==

===[[Robin Morgan]]===

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the [[oppressed]] have a right to [[class-hatred]] against the class that is oppressing them."<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] "Sisterhood is Powerful"(1970)</ref>

*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."<ref>[http://circuitous.org/scraps/combahee.html From] her introduction to "Sisterhood is Powerful"</ref><ref>http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp</ref>

*"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/ai_n9357217 From] "Sisterhood is Powerful"</ref>

*"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199903/ai_n8831317 From] "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape"</ref>

===[[Andrea Dworkin]]===

*"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."<ref name="LfaWZ">[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Letters from a War Zone"</ref>

*"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."<ref name="LfaWZ"/>

*"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice."<ref>Andrea Dworkin: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4024585,00.html "'They took my body from me and used it'"] (Guardian Unlimited)</ref>

*Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: "I am."<ref>[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIID.html "Nervous Interview"], 1978 (Background: "Norman Mailer managed to publish lots of interviews with himself, none of which made much sense, all of which were taken seriously by literati of various stripes. So this is half parody of him and his chosen form and half parody of myself and my chosen movement.")</ref>

*"Men use the night to erase us."<ref name="TNaD">[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIb.html The Night and Danger]</ref>

*"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality."<ref name="TNaD"/>

===[[Marilyn French]]===
[[Image:Marilyn French.gif|left]]
*"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women ... he can sexually molest his daughters ... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 182 (her emphasis)<ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

*"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women ... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 186 <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

*"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations ... obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 21 <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

====In fiction authored by [[Marilyn French]]====

*My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter" - ''The Women's Room''

*"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - The character Mia in her novel ''The Women's Room'', p. 462<ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345353617/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

===Other===

*"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

*"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

*"The feminista agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[lesbian]]s" - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992<ref>http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>

*"I'm furious with the Women's Liberationists. They keep getting up on soapboxes and proclaiming women are brighter than men. That's true, but it should be kept quiet or it ruins the whole racket" - Anita Loos

*"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex" - [[Valerie Solanas]], author of the SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men)

*"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things" - Jilly Cooper

*"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

*"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"It matters more what's in a woman's face than what's on it." - Claudette Colbert, quoted in Kindling the Spirit by Lois P. Frankel

*"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

*"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression" - Sheila Jeffrys

*"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs" - Catharine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale)

*"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" - Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in ''Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies''

*"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men" - Sharon Stone, Actress

*"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive ... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not [[Rambo]]" - Jodie Foster, Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine

*"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race" - Sally Miller Gearhart, in ''The Future - If There Is One - Is Female''

*"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference" - Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

*"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males" - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

*"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them" - David Angier

*"To use the word [rape] carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him. … They [men unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions." - Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar in 1991 <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973077-6,00.html</ref>

*"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it" - Barbara Jordan, former congresswoman

*"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release" - [[Germaine Greer]]

*"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence" - [[Judith Levine]], Authoress

*"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love' for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers." - [[Judith Levine]], Authoress of My Enemy, My love

*"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts' ... includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder" - Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document (A Southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex)

*((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The F---ing Molesters Society" (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory))

*((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SH*T; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY))

*"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do" {{Fact|Date=March 2008}} -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

*"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal" - Sylvia Fraser, Journalist

*[[Catharine MacKinnon]] maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid - ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed - they're "hiding from the truth" The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose - Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, [[Gloria Steinem]] et al, tenets of misandric belief)

*"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment ... of persuading students that women are oppressed" - Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women

*"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." - Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

*Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." (Both above quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, [[Heterophobia]])

*"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." {{fact}} - Heather Hart 7

*Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organisation for Women

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" - National NOW Times, January, 1988

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - feminist leader Sheila Cronan

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" - Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China" The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole ... patriarch!" - [[Gloria Steinem]], radical feminist leader, editor of Ms. Magazine

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" - [[Gloria Steinem]], editor of Ms. Magazine)

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women ... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world" - Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" - Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" - Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it" - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race" p. 67

*"Women's chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy." - Estelle R. Ramey

*"I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"

*"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men" - [[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]], from her diary of December 27, 1890, quoting a letter she wrote. <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=CIsEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22we+are+as+a+sex+infinitely+superior+to+men%22&source=web&ots=FqYVyWK-s6&sig=tnXoiGvopCcO1vFaoF7nmSvtXPM&hl=en#PPA270,M1</ref>

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

*MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants ... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female

*MAN: ... an obsolete life form ... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ...a contradictory baby-man ...

*TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning"

*Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" "... Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down" Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 February, 1996

*“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism” - Catharine MacKinnon

*The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

*<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

[[Category: Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]

Feminism

2011-04-01T04:44:14Z

Spotsbunch: /* Other */

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' originally was an expression used by [[suffragettes]] - who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

Specifically, a modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities. Modern feminists:

* never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left<ref> [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no [[sex differences]]; therefore advocacy for [[equal rights]] must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)
* view traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably patriarchal
* belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html</ref><ref> "Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"] </ref>
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* seek [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying<ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref>
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-boxer-maamjun19,0,5804401.story</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s and the Women's Liberation (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own state versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts ordered the issuance of homosexual marriage licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court ordered taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized{{who}} for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for American Thinker, links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and Marx, is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the state."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', American Thinker], November 29, 2009</ref>

==Quotations==

===[[Robin Morgan]]===

*"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the [[oppressed]] have a right to [[class-hatred]] against the class that is oppressing them."<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] "Sisterhood is Powerful"(1970)</ref>

*"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."<ref>[http://circuitous.org/scraps/combahee.html From] her introduction to "Sisterhood is Powerful"</ref><ref>http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp</ref>

*"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/ai_n9357217 From] "Sisterhood is Powerful"</ref>

*"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199903/ai_n8831317 From] "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape"</ref>

===[[Andrea Dworkin]]===

*"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."<ref name="LfaWZ">[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Letters from a War Zone"</ref>

*"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."<ref name="LfaWZ"/>

*"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice."<ref>Andrea Dworkin: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4024585,00.html "'They took my body from me and used it'"] (Guardian Unlimited)</ref>

*Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: "I am."<ref>[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIID.html "Nervous Interview"], 1978 (Background: "Norman Mailer managed to publish lots of interviews with himself, none of which made much sense, all of which were taken seriously by literati of various stripes. So this is half parody of him and his chosen form and half parody of myself and my chosen movement.")</ref>

*"Men use the night to erase us."<ref name="TNaD">[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIb.html The Night and Danger]</ref>

*"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality."<ref name="TNaD"/>

===[[Marilyn French]]===
[[Image:Marilyn French.gif|left]]
*"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women ... he can sexually molest his daughters ... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 182 (her emphasis)<ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

*"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women ... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 186 <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

*"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations ... obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 21 <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

====In fiction authored by [[Marilyn French]]====

*My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter" - ''The Women's Room''

*"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - The character Mia in her novel ''The Women's Room'', p. 462<ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345353617/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

===Other===

*"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon

*"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

*"The feminista agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[lesbian]]s" - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992<ref>http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>

*"The people I'm furious with the Women's Liberationists. They keep getting up on soapboxes and proclaiming women are brighter than men. That's true, but it should be kept quiet or it ruins the whole racket" - Anita Loos

*"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex" - [[Valerie Solanas]], author of the SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men)

*"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things" - Jilly Cooper

*"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

*"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"It matters more what's in a woman's face than what's on it." - Claudette Colbert, quoted in Kindling the Spirit by Lois P. Frankel

*"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

*"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression" - Sheila Jeffrys

*"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs" - Catharine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale)

*"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" - Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in ''Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies''

*"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men" - Sharon Stone, Actress

*"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive ... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not [[Rambo]]" - Jodie Foster, Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine

*"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race" - Sally Miller Gearhart, in ''The Future - If There Is One - Is Female''

*"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference" - Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

*"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males" - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

*"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them" - David Angier

*"To use the word [rape] carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him. … They [men unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions." - Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar in 1991 <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973077-6,00.html</ref>

*"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it" - Barbara Jordan, former congresswoman

*"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release" - [[Germaine Greer]]

*"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence" - [[Judith Levine]], Authoress

*"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love' for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers." - [[Judith Levine]], Authoress of My Enemy, My love

*"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts' ... includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder" - Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document (A Southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex)

*((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The F---ing Molesters Society" (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory))

*((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SH*T; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY))

*"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do" {{Fact|Date=March 2008}} -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

*"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal" - Sylvia Fraser, Journalist

*[[Catharine MacKinnon]] maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid - ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed - they're "hiding from the truth" The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose - Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, [[Gloria Steinem]] et al, tenets of misandric belief)

*"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment ... of persuading students that women are oppressed" - Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women

*"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." - Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

*Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." (Both above quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, [[Heterophobia]])

*"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." {{fact}} - Heather Hart 7

*Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organisation for Women

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" - National NOW Times, January, 1988

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - feminist leader Sheila Cronan

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" - Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China" The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole ... patriarch!" - [[Gloria Steinem]], radical feminist leader, editor of Ms. Magazine

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" - [[Gloria Steinem]], editor of Ms. Magazine)

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women ... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world" - Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" - Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" - Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it" - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race" p. 67

*"Women's chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy." - Estelle R. Ramey

*"I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"

*"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men" - [[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]], from her diary of December 27, 1890, quoting a letter she wrote. <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=CIsEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22we+are+as+a+sex+infinitely+superior+to+men%22&source=web&ots=FqYVyWK-s6&sig=tnXoiGvopCcO1vFaoF7nmSvtXPM&hl=en#PPA270,M1</ref>

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

*MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants ... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female

*MAN: ... an obsolete life form ... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ...a contradictory baby-man ...

*TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning"

*Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" "... Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down" Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 February, 1996

*“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism” - Catharine MacKinnon

*The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

*<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

[[Category: Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-30T20:44:20Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Facebook

2011-03-28T16:15:48Z

Spotsbunch:

[[Image:Newfacebooklogo3.jpg|right]]
'''Facebook''' is a social website originally started for the benefit of college students, but then commercialized for all with advertising and promotions. Users can waste their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, and by interfering with marriages and personal relationships.

Surveys show that Facebook feeds narcissistic tendencies.<ref>http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-30/tech/facebook.narcissism.mashable_1_facebook-social-networking-status-updates?_s=PM:TECH</ref>

Studies show that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems. The site is heavily promoted by [[liberal]]s, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.

Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users.

Facebook is based in Palo Alto, [[California]]. The name of the site is based on the paper facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community.<ref> [http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook] </ref>

==Monetary Value==
It is rumored that Facebook generates around $1 million per week in revenue. <ref>[http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/04/26/facebook-goes-beyond-college-high-school-markets/ "Facebook goes beyond college and high school markets"]</ref>
In September 2006, [[Yahoo]] began talks to acquire Facebook for as high as $1 billion. In October, Google allegedly offered $2.3 billion.<ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/10/first-youtube-now-facebook-rumors-circulate "First Youtube, Now Facebook: Rumors Circulate"]</ref> All outside offers have been rejected. 2009 estimates put a net value of $6.5 billion. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10285409-36.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 Facebook stock trading open; valuation $6.5 billion] CNET News, July 13, 2009</ref> 2010 estimates of the privately held company put the value at $14 billion dollars. <ref>[http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/20/facebook-valued-at-14-billion-on-secondmarket/ Facebook Valued At $14 Billion On SecondMarket, TechCrunch.com, January 20, 2010]</ref>

In 2011, [[Goldman Sachs]] invested $500 million in Facebook. It is speculated that Goldman Sachs may be put in charge of an initial public offering of Facebook stock in 2012. Valuations are speculated at between $10 and $50 billion. <ref>[http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/01/03/goldman-digital-sky-technologies-invest-facebook-report/?test=latestnews Is Facebook Worth $50B?, Fox Business, January 3, 2011]</ref>

==Origins==
Facebook was founded in February 2004 by [[Harvard]] sophomores [[Mark Zuckerberg]] and Eduardo Saverin, with help from Andrew McCollum. By December of 2004, after expanding the site to other universities, the number of registered users exceeded one million. In August 2005 Facebook obtained the domain name facebook.com and dropped the "the" from the site's name.

==2010==
A movie was made about the origins of Facebook, called ''[[The Social Network]]''. The film was number one in America for several weeks. Mark Zuckerberg was not involved in the creation of film and says that it was more Hollywood storyteling than reality.

It has been known among Silicon Valley technology companies that Facebook has been luring away [[Google]] employees to the extent that Google is now offering bonuses not to leave the company. On October 15, Facebook announced the release of a new email client. Internally referred to as Titan and the media has dubbed it Gmail Killer. Zuckerberg insists it is not a head-to-head competitor of Google's Gmail service and will be more of a instant messaging service. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/15/gmail-beware-facebook-unveils-e-mail-service/ E-MAIL WAR: Facebook Launches 'Gmail Killer' -- AOL Jumps In, Too, FOX News, November 15, 2010]</ref>
==Liberal Policies==
The world's largest online social network added civil unions and domestic partnerships to the list of relationships that its users can pick from to best describe their romantic status. The [[Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]] had lobbied for the policy adoption and is only available to Facebook users in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Australia. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/18/facebook-adds-support-sex-civil-unions Facebook Adds Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Fox News, February 18, 2011</ref>

==Privacy Issues==
Compared to [[MySpace]], Facebook gives the user many more options for privacy controls. Under the default private settings, only Facebook users in the same network, or friends of the user, can access another user's profile. There are also separate privacy controls for each type of information (blogs, messages, address and telephone numbers, photos). A user in a completely different network will ''apparently'' have no access to another user's profile unless they are added as a friend.<ref> [http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook on allexperts.com]</ref> Despite these controls, the same problems exist as with any other networking website:

* Many users post their full address, e-mail address, birthday, and telephone number, and these can be available to their entire network (and, in reality, anyone). This information in the wrong hands can be used for purposes of phishing, stalking, or even identity theft.
* Some universities have begun to use students' pages to investigate underage drinking and other violations of university policy. This is very possible, since university faculty and staff can sign up for the same network as their students through their campus e-mail account.<ref> [http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook on allexperts.com]</ref>
*The so-called "news feed" has aroused some discomfort among Facebook users, as it collects all changes among one's friends and posts whenever a user logs in.
*The "wall" feature allows a user to send a message to another user which remains on their profile page. This posting is viewable to everyone who can view the page, and shows up on the news feed for all friends of both the sender and the recipient.
*As with Google ads, Facebook collects profile information, and places ads on the page that reflect the user's personal information.
*The privacy settings on Facebook give users a false sense of security and encourage people to post things they shouldn't. As with other social networks, Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no [[hacking]] experience. Instead, Facebook actually ''encourages'' young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Online social networking]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-27T03:39:35Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-27T02:15:16Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-26T13:44:17Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-26T04:19:28Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-26T04:17:49Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-26T04:15:17Z

Spotsbunch: /* Disney cartoons */

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-25T03:38:17Z

Spotsbunch:

'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':

#''[[The Princess and the Frog]]'' (2009), a [[Disney]] children's animation promoting hard work, free enterprise, saving money and the importance of family. The strong, moral, female main character reproves her new-found philandering friend, causing him to quit his consummately decadent life to become monogamous and join her in business.
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]]. It broke the record for movie revenue.
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. <ref>[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]</ref>
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure. Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront. In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film. In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]]. Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. -
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) (perseverance and talent can overcome all odds)
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/</ref>
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984). Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. <ref>[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]</ref>
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime.
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. <ref>[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]</ref>
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- downplays the [[Resurrection]],<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - college students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - a classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - comedy musical. A story of redemption, "A mission from God", raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]</ref>
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.
#''Grease'' (1978) - some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teen rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. But she does not do it for any moral reason. This movie promotes the idea that a teenage girl can do whatever she wants without listening to any man, including get pregnant and choose what to do with the baby. See [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/mar08/08-03-19.html] for how this is pro-[[feminist]].
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-03-25T03:35:06Z

Spotsbunch:

'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':

#''[[The Princess and the Frog]]'' (2009), a [[Disney]] children's animation promoting hard work, free enterprise, saving money and the importance of family. The strong, moral, female main character reproves her new-found philandering friend, causing him to quit his consummately decadent life to join her in business and become monogamous.
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]]. It broke the record for movie revenue.
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. <ref>[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]</ref>
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure. Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront. In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film. In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]]. Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. -
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) (perseverance and talent can overcome all odds)
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/</ref>
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984). Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. <ref>[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]</ref>
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime.
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. <ref>[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]</ref>
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- downplays the [[Resurrection]],<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - college students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - a classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - comedy musical. A story of redemption, "A mission from God", raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]</ref>
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.
#''Grease'' (1978) - some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teen rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. But she does not do it for any moral reason. This movie promotes the idea that a teenage girl can do whatever she wants without listening to any man, including get pregnant and choose what to do with the baby. See [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/mar08/08-03-19.html] for how this is pro-[[feminist]].
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

Thanksgiving

2010-11-26T04:49:19Z

Spotsbunch: /* Journey to the New World */

[[Image:Vc006494.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Congressional Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, set by Congress, December 18, 1777]]
'''Thanksgiving Day''' is a national [[holiday]] in the [[United States]] that is celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November. It is traditionally a day set aside to give thanks to the [[God|Lord]] for His blessings. Second only to [[Independence Day]], Thanksgiving is a uniquely [[American]] holiday, and as such, it is rooted deeply -- like our nation -- in our faith in [[God]].

In 1789 President George Washington proclaimed Thanksgiving Day as the last Thursday in November. In 1941, the United States [[Congress]] passed a resolution decreeing that Thanksgiving should fall on the fourth Thursday of November. Thanksgiving Day proclamations have traditionally been given by the Presidents of the United States of America <ref> http://www.thanksgivingworld.com/thanksgiving-proclamations/index.html</ref>

==Colonial==
The earliest Thanksgivings were celebrated by Americans who were keenly aware that their blessings -- like their rights -- came from God. In times of hardship unimaginable to us today, they took time to give thanks to their Creator. The event is commemorated by a national holiday in November with its origins in [[Virginia]] at Berkeley Plantation on December 4, 1619. The first Thanksgiving was a religious celebration -- an occasion to thank [[God]] -- that featured only a modest meal. It wasn't until two years later, in 1621, that Thanksgiving was expanded to include a banquet by the [[Pilgrims]] in [[Massachusetts]]. Thanksgiving was the first uniquely American holiday.

==Washington==
In September 1789, Congress asked President [[George Washington]] to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.” Washington complied. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40032 President Washington Proclaims America’s Duty to ‘Obey’ God and ‘Be Grateful for His Benefits’] CNSNews, November 27, 2008</ref>

{{cquote|''Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.'' <ref>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html Library of Congress - George Washington Papers</ref>}}.

==Lincoln==
During the very heart of the [[American Civil War]], in October 1863, President [[Abraham Lincoln]] built on President Washington's initiative and created an annual day of Thanksgiving.

Like Washington, Lincoln was determined to draw a direct tie between America and the Heavenly Creator from whom Americans draw their rights.

Lincoln acknowledged that the nation was "in the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity." But he focused instead on the nation's blessings, urging his fellow Americans to remember that: {{cquote|'''No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. ''Let Us Be Thankful For a Land That Will For Such Religion Stand.''''' <ref>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/malhome.html Library of Congress - Abraham Lincoln Papers</ref>}}

Throughout early American history, when they suffered from drought, famine or war, Americans paused, not to seek vengeance or to question their faith, but to give thanks to God for the blessings they still had. Not only have many Americans forgotten or never learned the historic origins of our Thanksgiving -- to pause and give thanks to God for our abundance -- but radical [[secularists]] are intent on removing God and [[faith]] from our national life altogether. Many of the entertainment and political elite seem to be threatened by religious faith.

==History==

Thanksgiving in the United States is possibly the premier U.S. family celebration, typically celebrated at home and marked with a substantial feast. As the anchor of what is for many a four-day holiday weekend, Thanksgiving provides an occasion for family reunions, marks the beginning of the “holiday season” that continues through [[Christmas]] and New Year’s Day and, as its name suggests, affords Americans a shared opportunity to express their gratitude for plentiful food and general abundance.

Many cultures traditionally have marked a plentiful harvest with a celebration of thanks. Long before the first English settlers reached [[North America]], Western [[Europe]]ans observed “Harvest Home” festivals and the British an August 1 Lammas ("Loaf Mass") Day, celebrating the wheat harvest.

However the American Thanksgiving holiday, a ''National Day of Thanksgiving'', is unique in all the world. It was first celebrated in Virginia at Berkeley Plantation, where English colonists first held a Thanksgiving celebration on December 4, 1619, one year and 17 days prior to the landing of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. This first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief led the newly arrived English colonists to a grassy slope along the James River and instructed them to drop to their knees and pray in thanks to God for a safe arrival to the New World. On this day, Dec. 4, 1619, these 38 men from Berkeley Parish in England were given the instructions:

:''"Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God."'' [http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=50]
[[Image:Thanksgiving.jpg|right|275px]]
===Journey to the New World===
On August 1, 1620, the [[Mayflower]] set sail. The ship carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty [[Pilgrims]] led by [[William Bradford]]. On the journey, Bradford established a contract of "just and equal laws" for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The revolutionary ideas expressed in the [[Mayflower Compact]] came from the [[Bible]].

The Pilgrims had high regards to the lessons of the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament|New Testaments]]. They looked to the ancient [[Israelite|Israelites]] as a positive example to follow. Because of the biblical precedents set forth in [[Scripture]], they never doubted that the first social contract in America would work.

The journey to the [[New World]] was an arduous one. When the Pilgrims landed in [[New England]] in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, "[a] cold, barren, desolate wilderness." There were no friends to greet them. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. The Pilgrims suffered terribly during the winter of 1620–1621; half the Pilgrims, including Bradford's own wife, died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.

The following spring, local Wampanoag Indians taught the colonists how to fish for [[cod]] and skin [[beaver|beavers]] for [[coat|coats]], and how to grow corn (maize) and other local crops unfamiliar to the Pilgrims. The Indians helped the newcomers master hunting and fishing. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper. No matter, the Pilgrims remained faithful to God and gave thanks as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.<ref>''See, I Told You So'' (p. 70): "The True Story of Thanksgiving."</ref>

===Social Contract===
The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in [[London]] called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it.

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as experienced during the first harsh winter. Bradford decided to take bold action. He assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. Long before [[Karl Marx]] was born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what today is described as [[socialism]].

What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation. The Pilgrims decided early on to end [[collectivism]] permanently.<ref>John Stossel. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/24/john-stossel-lost-lesson-thanksgiving/ The Lost Lesson of Thanksgiving], FoxNews.com, (Published November 24, 2010).</ref> Bradford wrote about this social experiment in his diary.
{{cquote|'''The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'''<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]: ''See, I Told You So'' ISBN 0671871218 Chapter 6, "The True Story of Thanksgiving."</ref>}}

===Power of Free Enterprise===
The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So Bradford's community unharnessed the power of free enterprise by invoking the capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. The supply-side economics were faithfully taken from the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in [[Genesis]] 41. Following Joseph's suggestion,<ref>([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2041:34&version=NIV Gen 41:34]) "Let Pharaoh appoint commissioners over the land to take a fifth of the harvest of Egypt during the seven years of abundance."</ref> Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the "seven years of plenty" and the "Earth brought forth in heaps."<ref>([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2041:47&version=NIV Gen. 41:47]) "During the seven years of abundance the land produced plentifully."</ref> Bradford wrote on the success of capitalist principles and supply-side economics.
{{cquote|This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."}}

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. Because they harvested bountiful crops of corn, barley, beans and pumpkins, the colonists had much to be thankful for in the fall of 1621. English Puritans had traditionally designated special days of thanksgiving to express gratitude for God’s blessings. Thanksgiving is thanks to [[God]].

In the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony held their first Thanksgiving. They invited their Wampanoag benefactors who arrived with deer to roast with the turkeys and other wild game offered by the colonists. The colonists had learned how to cook cranberries and different kinds of corn and squash dishes from the Indians.

Many of the original colonists continued to celebrate days of thanksgiving for a bountiful autumn harvest and the blessings of freedom God had bestowed on them. President George Washington proclaimed a Day of National Thanksgiving in 1789, to celebrate the ratification of the United States Constitution. Gradually, a number of states began to celebrate an annual Thanksgiving. In 1863,during the long and bloody civil war, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November an annual National Day of Thanksgiving, to give thanks to God for the blessings God had bestowed upon the [[United States]].

===Thanksgiving is Thanks to God===
[[Image:Thanksgiving grace - 1942.jpg|right|300px]]
Thanksgiving is a time for prayer, tradition and sharing. Even if they live far away, family members often gather for family reunions. As a result, Thanksgiving marks the busiest domestic air travel period of the year. Many Americans enjoy a local Thanksgiving parade, or the annual Macy’s department store parade, televised live from New York City. Others watch televised [[NFL|American Pro Football]], while all give thanks together to God for their food, shelter and other good things. Many volunteer their time to help civic groups, churches, and charitable organizations offer traditional meals to those in need.

Although the fourth Thursday of November falls on a different date every year, the president is expected to proclaim that date as the official celebration.

The Pilgrims’ triumph over starvation and disease at [[Plymouth Colony]] can be traced to something more than the charitable gestures of a few local Indians. Rather, it was their faith in Divine Providence and the blessings of God. It also involves their courageous decision to replace a failed, socialistic agricultural system with one formed by the free-market principle of private ownership of property -- a century and a half before [[Adam Smith]] wrote The Wealth of Nations.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23453 The Reality of Thanksgiving], by Mike Franc, ''Human Events'', 11/16/2007.</ref>

==Symbols of Thanksgiving==
[[Image:FreedomFromWant.JPG|right|thumb|250px|''Freedom From Want'', aka ''The Thanksgiving Dinner'', by Norman Rockwell]]

*[[Turkey (bird)|Turkey]], [[corn]] (maize), pumpkins, sweet potatoes and cranberry sauce are symbols that represent the first Thanksgiving. These symbols often are depicted on holiday decorations and greeting cards. Corn in particular is held to represent the survival of the Pilgrim colonies. Used as a table or door decoration, corn or maize represents the harvest and the fall season.

*Sweet-sour cranberry sauce, or cranberry jelly, was on the first Thanksgiving table and is still served today. The cranberry is a small, sour berry. It grows in bogs, or muddy areas, in Massachusetts and other New England states. It is indigenous to [[North America]]. The Indians used the fruit to treat infections and the juice to dye their rugs and blankets. They taught the colonists how to cook the berries with sweetener and water to make a sauce. The Indians called it "ibimi," which means "bitter berry." The Pilgrims preferred "crane-berry" because the flowers of the berry bent the stalk over, reminding them of the long-necked crane. The berries are still grown in [[New England]].

*In 1988, a Thanksgiving night ceremony of a different kind took place at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in [[New York City]]. Among the more than four thousand people gathered there were Native Americans representing tribes from all over the country and descendants of the later immigrants. The ceremony acknowledged publicly the [[Native Americans]]' role in the first American Thanksgiving, a feast held to thank the Indians for sharing the knowledge and skills without which the first Pilgrims would not have survived.

==Canada==
[[Canadian]] Thanksgiving is celebrated on the second Monday in October. Although it is an official holiday in most jurisdictions of Canada, the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Nova Scotia do not recognize it.

==See also==

*[[George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation]]
*[[Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation]]

==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
*[http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?featureid=50]
*[http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/holidays/thanksgiving/thanksgiving_entertaining The Complete Thanksgiving Guide]
*[http://www.history.com/minisites/thanksgiving/ The History of Thanksgiving]
*[http://www.bright.net/~1wayonly/reflection.html Reflection, Prayer & Thanksgiving] Kimberly B. Southall.

[[Category:Holidays]]
[[Category: United States]]

United Nations

2010-11-24T19:11:25Z

Spotsbunch:

[[Image:UN1.jpg|right|200px]]
The '''United Nations''' is a [[globalism|globalist]] organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including almost all the countries in the world. Non-members include [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]]. Switzerland finally joined in 2002.<ref> [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref> The United Nations typically supports [[liberal]], [[socialist]] ideas.<ref>{{cite web|last=Kincaid|first=Cliff|url=http://www.aim.org/aim-report/the-plan-for-socialist-world-government|title=The Plan For Socialist World Government|accessdate=2010-02-06|publisher=Accuracy in Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations|title=United Nations|accessdate=2010-02-06|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.middletownca.com/LIBERAL-EQUALS-SOCIALIST.htm|title=Liberal equals socialist equals communitarian equals fabian society equals Agenda 21|accessdate=2010-02-06|publisher=middletownca.com}}</ref>

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan, but the actual UN was created in 1945. It was designed by the U.S. State Department. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", Britain, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism.

US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said at the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest."

American enthusiasm for the UN soured after the [[Soviet Union]] vetoed most resolutions of the Security Council. However the Soviets boycotted the UN in 1950, allowing the UN to officially sponsor the [[Korean War]]. In practice, the U.S. made all the decisions for the UN regarding that war. When the Soviets returned in 1951, soo too did stalemate, and the UN played a minor role in the [[Cold War]].

The western military alliance of [[NATO]] began in 1949 and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did. The one exception was the [[Korean War]], which was fought under UN auspisces since theSoviet Union was boycotting the UN in 1950.
===Third World issues===
In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

By the 1960s, the General Assembly, although powerless, became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

===China===

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international peace and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.
===International Court of Justice===
The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.
===Other Sections===
The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]

The U.N. has been accused of hypocritical conduct and double standards. The U.N. condemns Israel for its conduct toward the Palestinians, yet it refuses to condemn China for its conduct toward the Tibetans. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C0058CAB-F932-4EB8-B2C1-2C8CABB01F53 The U.N.'s Hypocrisy in Tibet], [[Joseph Klein]], ''[[Front Page Magazine]]'', March 28, 2008</ref>

The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict. <ref> IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423057524689 U.N. Fiddles As China Torches Tibet], retrieved 30 March 2008.</ref>

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Promoting Abortion===
The Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) pushes countries to promote [[abortion]].
<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/int620.html United Nations Committee Pushes Countries to Promote Abortion in CEDAW Mtg], [[Samantha Singson]], ''[[Life News]]'', February 15, 2008</ref>

===Arab-Israel dispute===
[[File:Bnai-brith.jpg|thumb|300px|''B'nai B'rith'' magazine gives a Jewish view of the UN, [http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=25994 winter 2009 online]]] A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. Increasingly the General Assembly became a forum for Arab attacks on [[Israel]]

The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

===Defending Islam===
The United Nations Secretary General [[Ban Ki-moon]] condemned [[Geert Wilders]]'s controversial film "[[Fitna]]", while stating "freedom of expression is not at stake here." <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2844232220080328?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true U.N.'s Ban condemns Dutch film as anti-Islamic], ''[[Reuters]]'', March 28, 2008.</ref>

The U.N.'s Human Rights Council passed a resolution that directs the body’s expert on free speech to report on “individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.” <ref>[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F00A83C1-8D4A-4A7B-9545-9A63091D8294 The United Nations: Islam’s Gestapo], [[Stephen Brown]], ''[[Front Page Magazine]]'', April 11, 2008</ref> This suppression of free speech at an organization purporting to fairly represent the world's nations in a common forum is one of numerous actions in the past decade that has undermined U.N. credibility.

===Contemporary US Criticism===
Some American critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the [[Sovereignty]] of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of [[One-world government|world government]]. Some claim that President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions. Some commentators now feel that it has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref>

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==Notable roles of U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N.==
* 1981-1985, Jeane Kirkpatrick - Denunciated the Soviet Union for the Sept. 1, 1983 shootdown of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] in international airspace just west of [[Sakhalin]] Island.

==Further reading==
* Pubantz, Jerry, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the United Nations'' (2nd ed. 2008), useful basic guide to all activities
* Weiss, Thomas G., and Sam Daws, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations'' (2009), 848pp; articles by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-United-Nations-Handbooks/dp/0199560102/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]
* Weiss, Thomas G. ''The United Nations and Changing World Politics'' (6th ed. 2009), 504pp; solid college textbook [http://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-Changing-World-Politics/dp/0813344352/ref=pd_sim_b_3cerpt and text search]
==External links==

*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/United Nations|Articles about the '''United Nations''' from previous "In the news" ]]

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.
*[http://www.rescue007.org/ International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors]

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/united-nations/ What Liberals Say - Category: United Nations], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:United Nations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[category:Human Rights]]

==See Also==
*[[Jeane Kirkpatrick]]

==References==
<references/>

Gerrymandering

2010-11-07T18:12:26Z

Spotsbunch:

'''Gerrymandering''' is a term that refers to to purposeful rearranging of district lines in order to influence the outcome of an election or to favor one political party over another. The first instance of gerrymandering in the [[United States]] occurred during the 1800 presidential election between [[John Adams]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]].
* The ''Boston Gazette'' ran a cartoon depicting the new district as a contorted animal and proclaiming the "Gerry-mander, a new species of monster."<ref> [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/854xppnl.asp The End of Gerrymandering], Christian Whiton and Larry Greenfield, ''The Weekly Standard'', 11/25/2008</ref>
The result of the rearranging of districts helped Jefferson win the extremely close presidential race.

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Election Terms]]

Joseph Smith

2010-07-19T02:36:36Z

Spotsbunch: /* Imprisonment and Death */

[[Image:Joseph Smith.gif|thumb|right|150px|Joseph Smith, Jr.]]
''For other Joseph Smiths, see [[Joseph F. Smith]] or [[Joseph Fielding Smith]].''

'''Joseph Smith, Jr.''' (1805 - 1844) was the founder and 1st [[President]] of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. Joseph Smith was the first [[prophet]], [[seer]] and [[revelator]] of the church. Joseph was born on December 23, 1805 in [[Sharon]], [[Vermont]].
==Visions==
[[Image:First Vision.jpg|thumb|125px|Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
After reading {{Bible ref|book=James|chap=1|verses=5|version=KJV}}, Joseph decided to ask God which church he should join. In the Spring of 1820, Joseph said he saw [[God]] and [[Jesus]] in a vision.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,959-1,00.html The First Vision] Mormon.org</ref> Joseph claimed to have been visited by an [[angel]] named [[Moroni]] from 1823 to 1827. According to Smith's account, Moroni showed Joseph where to find buried gold plates, and the plates contained the full gospel of Jesus Christ in "reformed Egyptian" (a language which few, if any non-Mormon, believes ever existed). Smith claimed to have translated these gold plates by the inspiration of God, and he published them in 1830 as the [[Book_of_Mormon|Book of Mormon]].<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html Translation of the Book of Mormon] Mormon.org</ref> It was later claimed that, on May 15, 1829, the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to Joseph and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and gave them the authority to [[baptism|baptize]].<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1291-1,00.html Authority to baptize] Mormon.org</ref> In 1829 the [[apostle]]s [[Peter]], [[James the Apostle|James]], and [[John]] gave them the authority to restore Christ's Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1292-1,00.html Authority of Apostles] Mormon.org</ref>

Joseph Smith also worked on a revision of the [[King James Bible]], known as the [[Inspired Version]] of the Bible. It was not published until after his death.

==Wives==
Smith married [[Emma Hale]] (daughter of Isaac Hale) in 1827 against her father's wishes. A judge in South Bainbridge, [[New York]] married them. This angered her father. He said to Smith “You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to the grave.” <ref>MORMON ENIGMA: EMMA HALE SMITH (Newell & Avery, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1994)</ref>

Later, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith tried to establish [[polygamy]]. Between 1841 and 1843, Joseph married more than thirty wives although he kept the practice hidden from the public and from Emma. In order to cause Emma to accept his additional wives, Joseph claimed to receive a revelation regarding this “new and everlasting covenant” of plural marriage, partly directed at Emma - [[Doctrine and Covenants]] 132:

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...

D&C 132:4 ...no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

D&C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph...

D&C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then...I will...give unto him an hundred fold in this world, of...wives...”

D&C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him...he cannot commit adultery...

D&C 132:64 ...if any man have a wife...and he teaches unto her [this] law...then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed...

Despite the document's stipulation that the multiple wives be "virgins", Smith unabashedly married eleven women who had current marriages to other men (who were still alive at the time of each woman's marriage to Smith).

Smith's wives (and their husbands) were: Emma Hale, Fanny Alger (16 years old), Lucinda Morgan Harris (married to George W Harris), Louisa Beaman, Zina Huntington Jacobs (married to Henry Jacobs), Presendia Huntington Buell (married to Norman Buell), Agnes Coolbrith, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (married to Windsor Lyon), Mary Rollins Lightner (married to Adam Lightner), Patty Bartlett Sessions (married to David Sessions), Marinda Johnson Hyde (married to Orson Hyde), Elizabeth Davis Durfee (married to Jabez Durfee), Sarah Kingsley Cleveland (married to John Cleveland), Delcena Johnson, Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney (17 years old), Martha McBride Knight, Ruth Vose Sayers (married to Edward Sayers), Flora Ann Woodworth, Emily Dow Partridge, Eliza Maria Partridge, Almera Johnson, Lucy Walker (17 years old), Sarah Lawrence (17 years old), Maria Lawrence, Helen Mar Kimball (14 years old), Hanna Ells, Elvira Cowles Holmes (married to Jonathan Holmes), Rhoda Richards, Desdemona Fullmer, Olive Frost, Melissa Lott, Nancy Winchester (14 years old) and Fanny Young.<ref>[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp Family Search] Familysearch.org</ref><ref>[http://http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ Wives of Joseph Smith] WivesofJosephSmith.org</ref>

Although there is some historic indication that Smith married more women than those listed here (such as Clarissa Reed Hancock, the mother of John Reed Hancock), the evidence is not conclusive.

==Imprisonment and Death==
Smith had been imprisoned in [[Carthage]], [[Illinois]] for destroying the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor. The Expositor had denounced (in its only printed edition) "false doctrines" (for instance the "doctrines of many gods") and Smith had had the printing press burned in the street. In retaliation, an angry mob broke into the prison on June 27, 1844. In an attempt to defend himself (with a pistol which had been smuggled in to him), Smith shot and wounded three men. He was preparing to jump from the unbarred second floor window where he had been incarcerated, but was shot, causing him to fall injured to the ground below. Four men shot him to death on the ground. None was convicted. His brother [[Hyrum]] (who was also armed with a pistol) was shot in the face and killed during the same gun-battle. <ref>[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=ad10001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0 Martyr for God] JosephSmith.net</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith JosephSmith.net] - The official web site on Joseph Smith by the LDS Church.
*[http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,957-1,00.html "Who was Joseph Smith?"] - At Mormon.org

{{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Joseph}}
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]
[[Category:Mormon Prophets]]

James Inhofe

2010-05-11T16:04:35Z

Spotsbunch:

{{Officeholder
|name=James Inhofe
|image=Inhofe.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Kay Inhofe
|religion=Presbyterian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Oklahoma
|terms=November 17, 1994 – Present
|preceded=David Boren
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Oklahoma
|district=1st
|terms=January 6, 1987 – November 17, 1994
|preceded= James Robert Jones
|former=n
|succeeded=Steve Largent
}}
}}

'''James Inhofe''', born November 17, 1934 (age {{age|1934|11|17}}), is a [[Republican]] [[United States]] Senator from the state of [[Oklahoma]]. After former Senator [[David Boren]] resigned to take the presidency of the [[University of Oklahoma]] in 1994, Inhofe ran and won the senatorial election and served out the two remaining years. He was re-elected in 1996 and again in 2002. He served as the chairman of the Senate's Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Armed Services Committee until 2007.<ref name="uscc">http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2005bios/05_07_21_22/inhofe_james.htm</ref>

After taking the role as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2003, Inhofe worked to increase security enhancement in drinking water and wastewater facilities, passing a bill which authorized a total of $245 million in Environmental Protection Agency grants,<ref>http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/</ref>. Through this work in the committee, Inhofe endeavors to restore sound science to the regulatory decisions on such issues as [[global warming]], wetlands, clean air mandates, and endangered species.

Inhofe's voting record in opposition to [[abortion]] and [[Stem cell research|embryonic stem cell]] research, and increase taxes have proven him to be a strong conservative. The American Conservative Union rates Inhofe as one of the most consistently conservative Senators currently serving, with a lifetime rating of 97.62. <ref>http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#HI</ref>

Inhofe had previously served four terms in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] representing Oklahoma's First Congressional District from 1987 to 1994. He had also served in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives in 1966, serving one two-year term. From 1968 to 1976 Inhofe was a member of the Oklahoma State Senate, honored by his colleagues being selected to be the majority leader.<ref>http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27027</ref>
He is actively involved in aviation, being the only member of Congress to fly a plane around the world<ref name="uscc" />.

==External Links==
*[http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Official Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/James_Inhofe.htm Voting Record]
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Inhofe, James}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Nazi Party

2010-01-17T02:32:59Z

Spotsbunch: /* Religion */

[[Image:Flag of Nazi Germany.png|thumb|200px|'''The flag of Nazi Germany''' featuring the notorious swastika]]
The '''Nazi Party''' ('''NSDAP''', formally the ''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'' or in English ''National Socialist German Workers' Party''<ref> "Nazi" comes from the first word in the party's name, '''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische.
</ref>) was a totalitarian movement and party in [[Germany]] from 1919-1945. It was controlled after 1922 by [[Adolf Hitler]]. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany and took control of the government and most sectors of Germany's society and economy. The Nazi regime in Germany 1933-45 called itself the '''[[Third Reich]].''' The Nazis rearmed Germany, conquered the neighbors, murdered six million Jewish civilians and an estimated 15 million other 'undesirables' in the [[Holocaust]] and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the [[Allies]] (the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union, along with smaller countries). Like Hitler, the Nazis have become synonymous with evil in the modern world.

The socialism Hitler advocated is much closer to that of Soviet [[communism]] than many people realize,<ref>[http://mises.org/story/1937 Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian] - George Reisman - Mises Institute.</ref> especially those who think in terms of "[[right wing]]" and "[[left wing]]" politics.

==Foundations==

[[Adolf Hitler]] exploited the myth of the “Stab in the Back,” the belief that the [[World War I]] had been lost because “disloyal” elements within Germany – [[Jews]] and [[Marxism|Marxists]] – had undermined the war effort. As [[William Shirer]] put it in ''The Rise and Fall of the [[Third Reich]]'',

<blockquote>
"To him, as to almost all Germans, it was ‘monstrous’ and undeserved. The German army had not been defeated in the field. It had been stabbed in the back by the traitors at home.

Thus emerged for [[Hitler]], as or so many Germans, a fanatical belief in the legend of the ‘stab in the back’ which, more than anything else, was to undermine the Weimar Republic and pave the way for Hitler’s ultimate triumph.”
<ref name=rise>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book One, “The Rise of Adolf Hitler.” </ref>
</blockquote>

The origin of the Nazi Party itself was a small group called The German Workers' Party, founded by a locksmith named Anton Drexler who, in 1918, had set up a “Committee of Independent Workmen” in reaction to the [[Marxism]] of the free trade unions.<ref name=rise /> A year later The German Workers Party was formed when this merged with another group, the Political Workers' Circle. <ref>Shoah Resource Center, http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205946.pdf </ref> <ref>Germanculture.com, http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa012400b.htm</ref>

It was Adolf Hitler, who joined the party and was put in charge of propaganda in 1920, who transformed this small group into what we now know as the Nazi Party through his great skill in politics and public speaking. That same year the words “National Socialist” were added to the party name and it became “The National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP). The Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung, [[Brownshirts|SA]]) in their distinctive brown uniforms, were organized first to kick out hecklers at Nazi meetings, then to break up the meetings of other parties. The hakenkreuz (literally: ''hooked cross''), or the [[swastika]], was adopted in the party’s flag. By the following summer, Hitler himself had taken over as leader (de: Führer) of the party.

*Here we have the core of Nazism: (i) a very strong dose of German anti-semitism (with a paranoid belief in a conspiracy between Jewish financiers who control the capitalist economy and steal from the Germans, Jewish liberal intellectuals who preach humanism and enfeeble the Germans, and Jewish communists who seek to enslave the Germans; (ii) a belief in the German nation and the "aryan" German race as an entity with a special, heroic destiny; (iii) war as the ultimate test of national strength and worth; and (iv) conquest--with extermination or removal of the resident population--to create more "living space" or the German people and larger fields for the German farmers. Add to this (a) the "leadership principle"--a hatred of parliamentary institutions, and a belief that a good political order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands (rather than see parliamentarians haggle and compromise on behalf of interest groups)--(b) the use of terror to obtain obedience, and (c) the desire to make sure that all of society's organizations serve the national cause, and you have Nazism. <ref>http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html</ref>

==Anti-Semitism==

The Nazis were highly [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semitic]] and blamed the Jews for many of the problems in Germany, such as the defeat in [[World War I]].
The Nazis passed the [[Nuremberg Laws]] in 1935 which stated that:
* Young German women could not work for Jews in the domestic services.
* Jews were no longer citizens of Germany (this meant that they had no protection from the police and so were susceptible to attack)
* Jewish doctors were not allowed to treat Germans/Aryans
* Jews could not marry Germans/Aryans
They made laws against Jews ("Rassengesetze", ''race laws'') which places successively tighter restrictions on the rights of Jews to own property, use public services, live in some areas, enter public spaces and eventually required Jews wear a [[Star of David]] on their clothing.
The Jews were mistreated, persecuted, and killed by the Nazis.
The Nazi state also persecuted other political opponents, [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], [[Freemasons]], state-run hospitals euthanized the very old, the sick, mentally ill and the disabled, and foreign nationals. [[homosexuality|Homosexuals]]<ref>Hans Peter Bleuel, ''Sex and Society in Nazi Germany'', (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1973).</ref>came under increasing scrutiny and persecution in the later years of the regime.
The Nazis exterminated at least 11 million civilians by rounding them up, transporting them to concentration camps and then murdering them there. About 6 million of these were Jews (see [[Holocaust]]).

==Religion==
Nazis rejected Christianity as spoiled by Judaism, but did support a new pro-Nazi Protestant church that had a few followers. The Nazis tried to minimize the influence of Protestant and Catholic chruches, while promoting as pre-Christian German paganism. Adolf Hitler was raised Roman Catholic as a youth, but he began to dispise the church and all of Christianity as too pacifist or a "religion for weaklings".

=== Alfred Rosenberg ===

Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, the party's official philosopher, announced the philosophic basis of the Nazi campaign. In his ''The Myth of the Twentieth Century'' he scorns the Old Testament, and while he takes Jesus more seriously, he concludes,<ref>Time (Sept 03, 1934)</ref>
:The religion of Jesus was undoubtedly the preaching of love . . . but the German religious movement, which wishes to develop into a people's church, must declare that it unconditionally subordinates the ideal of neighborly love to the ideal of national honor . . . The churches, handed over to it again, will, little by little, put the fiery spirit of the hero . . . in place of the crucifixion."

The outspoken pagan Rosenberg drew up a thirty-point program for the ''National Reich Church'', created in 1936, which contains the following statements,

*"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
*"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
*"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
*"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
*"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
*"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."<ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer, P. 240</ref>

When a Manchester Guardian correspondent attended a Berlin meeting of the German People's Church, he found it a noisy, enthusiastic, a theological free-for-all. One Dr. Krause exclaimed, "The lives and utterances of great Germans must be considered equal to the Bible as revelations..."

=== Pagan cults ===

Throughout Germany strange little pagan cults were seen to arise, such as the pantheistic Nordic Religious Community.

Youth Leader Hartmann-Lautenbacher stated, "Besides the rock of Jesus Christ there is another: Adolf Hitler. It remains to be seen which of the two is stronger. On the one sit the old women. On the other stands the young generation."

Youth Press Agent August Hoppe exhorted war against Christianity, and a return to pagan roots.

Similar to what some see today in the West, Youth Leader Joachim Benedicte stated, "...The religious faith of the German people must be decided by political elements, the Storm Troops and the Hitler Youth."<ref>Religion: Nazis v. Jesus Christ, Time. 9-03-1934</ref>

As in Communism, the State, or ''Fatherland'' came to be deified, in the name of which Hitler justified his autocratic decision to kill - for political purposes - a large number of S.A. leaders while they were at a resort, during the "Night of the Long Knives."

Rather than initially attacking Christian faith outright, the Nazi party promoted itself as "positive Christianity," and vigorously opposed what they call "negative Christianity", both terms being Nazi inventions which could mean whatever the local Nazi leader chooses them to mean. In their Manifesto of their "anxieties and fears", the German Evangelical Church quoted Rosenberg as saying, "The general ideas of the Roman and of the Protestant churches are negative Christianity and do not, therefore, accord with our soul." The Manifesto concludes: "When, within the compass of the Nazi view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands...The Evangelical conscience is most heavily burdened by the fact that there are still concentration camps in Germany that describes itself as a country in which Justice is administered..."<ref>Time magazine, Aug. 10, 1936, Foreign News: Churchmen to Hitler</ref>

=== Religious persecution ===

Overall however, the spiritual condition of Germany may be seen to have been weak by and during the time of Hitler's rise to power. Protestant churches in Germany had become largely institutionalized, and its power to effect political change decreased. The Catholic Institution had been pressured into a Concordant with Hitler, which the latter continually broke. Loyalties were torn as [[national socialism]] became the cause, and churches were pressured to submit to its ethos.<ref>''A history of national socialism, Cross against Swastika'', by Konrad Heiden</ref><ref>''Pius XII and the Nazis'', by Darlene Shelton</ref>Jews were overall seen negatively, stubborn and ungrateful.<ref>''Martin Luther and "The Jews" A Reappraisal'', by Dr. Christopher Probst</ref> After their rise to power the Nazis sought to purge the national German Evangelical Church of converted Jews, as well to make the church ideologically submissive to the state. By entertaining the Nazi doctrine of Aryan racial superiority and persecution of Jews, they militated against the authoritative position of the Scriptures. Largely in reaction to such the [[Confessing Church]] emerged. This Protestant church was not recognized by the Nazi's, and was persecuted and finally forced underground, as many members and leaders, such as [[Martin Niemöller]], were particularly active in protesting against euthanasia and the persecution of the Jews.<ref>The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008; Confessing Church</ref><ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009, Confessing Church</ref>

Measures taken against the Christian Churches were an integral part of [[National Socialism]]. An [[OSS]] report to the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]] Stated,
:"The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert the influence of the Churches over the people and in particular over the youth of Germany. They avowed their aim to eliminate the Christian Churches in Germany and sought to substitute therefore Nazi institutions and Nazi beliefs and pursued a programme of persecution of priests, clergy and members of monastic orders whom they deemed opposed to their purposes and confiscated Church property."<ref>Claire Hulme & Dr. Michael Salter, [http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf ''The Nazi's Persecution as a War Crime: The OSS Response Within the Nuremeberg Trial's Process''], Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, n.d.</ref>

Though Christians sometime hold Hitler to be an atheist, and atheists often assert he was a Christian, the best evidence shows him to be neither, in particular failing to be the latter, especially in the Biblical sense of the word (being both the source and most authoritative definition of it). In contrast, evidence reveals that while Hitler shared with many atheists a dramatically skewed idea of what Christianity is, and or made political use of the term, he was quite the contrary to being a Christian.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Holocaust-Bible-Scriptural-Anti-Semitism/dp/0982277601 Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis..., by Joe Keysor]</ref>

The resource site Adherents.com states,

There is no question that Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism was clearly his most important religious affiliation, not in the positive way the word “religion” is often defined, but in the general sense that any philosophy or belief system which is most important in a person’s life is that person’s “religion,” regardless of whether or not it is universally labelled as a “religion.” Hitler was also born into a Catholic family, but he rejected Catholicism and in most ways he rejected Christianity in general. On occasion we have read people claim that “Hitler was a Catholic” or “Hitler was a Christian” in a meaningful way, implying that Christianity or Catholicism was the primary impetus for his Nazi reign. Such claims are simply vitriolic attacks occasionally voiced by ideologically-inclined anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi people. Historians agree that Hitler was pointedly anti-Christian. We are not aware of any published sources from acknowledged academic historians or writers that identify Adolf Hitler as significantly Catholic or Christian in his motivations as an adult.”<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Adolf_Hitler.html</ref>

=== Hossbach Memorandum ===

In the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome (rather than such being a judgment due to its degradation, and persecution of Christians and its message), stating: "It was only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age which appear in every country, which caused ancient Rome to succumb to the onslaught of the Germans." <ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/hossbach.asp]</ref>

Additionally, Albert Speer records that Hitler lamented, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion." and that Islam would have more compatible for them than Christianity.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=XLSa_RIDHMUC&dq=Albert+Speer,+Inside+the+Third+Reich,&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=551HSrzDDcm0twf6x7TbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 Inside the Third Reich, p. 96]</ref>

In another statement attributed to Hitler, he predicts, “I’m going to become a religious figure. Soon I’ll be the great chief of the Tartars. Already Arabs and Moroccans are mingling my name with their prayers.”<ref>Adolf Hitler, cited in Waite, Robert, Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God (NY: Basic Books, 1977) p. 261) (Lutzer, pp. 62-63.)</ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2132855/posts?page=101#101]

=== Hitler's Table Talk ===

Clear but disputable evidence reveals Hitler as promoting a form of paganism, which the Nazi party clearly sought to promote. ''Hitler's Table Talk'' is a series of informal, private conversations among Hitler and his closest associates, as recorded by (anti-Catholic) Martin Bormann. The ex tempore remarks excerpted below are attributed to Hitler:<ref>Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953</ref>

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

*"[[National Socialism]] and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

*"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

*"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

*"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....

*"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar...

*"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night

*"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday

*"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....

*"The decisive falsification of Jesus' [who he asserts many times was never a Jew] doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....

*"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday

*"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

*"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner

*"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday

*"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

Miscellaneous other quotes include,

*"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it."

*"Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline."

*"We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth."

*"Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this."

*"We do not want to educate anyone in atheism."

*"The observatory I'll have built at Linz, on the Pöstlingberg, I can see it in my mind ... In future, thousands of excursionists will make a pilgrimage there every Sunday. They'll thus have access to the greatness of our universe. The pediment will bear this motto: 'The heavens proclaim the glory of the everlasting.' It will be our way of giving men a religious spirit, of teaching them humility — but without the priests."

*"The final state must be: in St. Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish."

*"For my part, in his place [the Duce] I'd have taken the path of revolution. I'd have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out — reserving the right to apologize later: 'Excuse me, it was a mistake!' But the result would have been, they'd have been outside!"
[[Image:Nazi.jpg|thumb|right|250px|"With our flags is our victory"]]
*"But a pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring."

*"I have six Divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn't prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls."

*"The soul and the mind migrate, just as the body returns to nature. Thus life is eternally reborn from life. As for the 'why' of all that, I feel no need to rack my brains on the subject. The soul is unplumbable."<ref>Hitler on Religion: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm</ref>

Hitler, much like atheists, is seen to not only have scorned corruptions of Christian faith, but the whole faith as well. Having loosed himself from the moral authority of the Bible (though misappropriating it's "badge" at times for his own purposes) he was much free to be guided by his own "golden compass", which is ultimately the atheistic basis for determining morality. Tragically however, while an innate sense of right can be right, Hitler's compass pointed south rather than north.

==Economic planning==

[[James Burnham]], a former [[Trotskyite]] who served with the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS) during the World War II and later contributed to the ''[[National Review]]'', described the Nazi regime's [[economic planning]]. Burnham pointed out how the original "workers revolution" of [[Marxism]] had in fact become a managerial revolution in all societies were Socialism had been embraced. Writing in 1940, Burnham noted,

{{Cquote|Outright state ownership and operation, advancing in all fields, are particularly ascendant in the extensive areas of new enterprise opened up during the Nazi rule....virtually all economic enterprise is subject to rigid state control; and it is control which we have seen to be decisive in relation to the instruments of production. Legal forms, even income privileges, are in the end subordinate to ''de facto'' control.

Even where private owners still exist in Germany, the decisions about "their" property are not in their hands. They do not decide what to make or not to make. They do not establish prices or bargain about wages. They are not at liberty to buy the raw materials they might choose nor to seek the most profitable markets. They cannot, as a rule, decide how to invest or not invest their surplus funds. In short, they are no longer owners, no longer effective [[capitalist]]s...

The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to the private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

The workers, on their side, are no longer the "free proletarians" of capitalism. Under Nazism the workers are indeed, free from unemployment. At the same time they cannot, as individuals or through their own independent organizations, bargain for wages or change jobs at will. They are assigned to their tasks, and their labor conditions are fixed, by the decisions of the state bureaus and commissions. Millions of them are allotted to the vast state enterprises. ...With the reduction in the area of private enterprise and the increase of state enterprise, goes also a corresponding reduction in the social position of the private capitalists. So far as control over the instruments of production goes, the capitalists are already near the bottom. As to income privilege: a recent estimate by a New York statistician gives as a mere 5% the share of the German national income going to profits and interest. This is a substantial reduction from the 1933 figures, in spite of a huge increase in the total national income, which, under capitalism, would normally be accompanied by a percentage increase in profits. ...f the German capitalists' 5%, the greater part is appropriated by the state as taxes and "contributions." ...

...how seldom we find a manager among the voluntary or forced exiles from Nazi Germany! There are artists and writers among the exiles, ideologists and politicians, unassailable foes of the new regime, storekeepers and professionals and teachers, and not a few capitalists, both Jews and Christians. But almost never a manager....Germany is to-day a managerial state in an early stage. Structurally, it is less advanced along managerial lines than Russia; ...though structurally less advanced...Its industrial and technological foundation is far stronger; the rising managerial class is much larger, better trained, more able...

...The first part of the second world war, up to the fall of France in June, 1940, was in reality the continuation of the strategic extension begun in 1935. This phase, the consolidation of the European base, was completed with France's surrender. It is completed irreversibly and can no longer be undone whatever the outcome of the succeeding phases of the war, which are really other wars. This consolidation fundamental to the world politics of managerial society, is not going to be dissolved, not even if the present German regime is utterly defeated. The day of a Europe carved into a score of sovereign states is over; if the states remain, they will be little more than administrative units in a larger collectivity. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966, pgs. 222-226, 232.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Anti-Semitism]]
*[[Adolf Hitler]]

==External links==
*[http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html Marxism, Fascism, Nazism] - Brad DeLong, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley
*Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis of Anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and the Churches in Nazi Germany, by Joe Keysor

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:Holocaust]]
[[Category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Fascist States]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]

Iron Eagle

2010-01-01T14:47:24Z

Spotsbunch:

'''''Iron Eagle''''' (1986) is a movie about a hotshot teen pilot whose [[F-16|father's plane]] was shot down by [[MiG-23|MiG]]'s of an [[Islamic]] country over the [[Mediterranean Sea]].

Doug Masters spent more time on a jet fighter simulator than doing his homework, so his grades were not good enough to get into the Air Force Academy. To avenge a prank against his girlfriend, Doug challenges the town bully to a plane vs. motorbike race through Snake Canyon - but the bully (and his gang) are cheats.

The confrontation with the bullies mirrors an attack on Doug's father - who had been flying in international airspace when shot down, so he could be held hostage. The film doesn't say which country was involved, only that it claimed a "200 mile limit" while the US only recognizes 12 miles, and "Bilyad" sounds a lot like [[Libya]]; see [[Gulf of Sidra incident]].

After hearing the bad news about his dad - and the fact that the US is planning no military response, Doug borrows some time on the world's most expensive video game (an F-16 flight simulator vs. MiGs). He finds out the pilot whose simulator time he borrowed is Colonel Charles Sinclair (USAF Reserve), the airplane mechanic who helped him win the Snake Canyon bet. They have a tense conversation about rescuing Doug's dad.

The next day, Doug graduates from high school, reflecting on the inspiring words of the valedictorian's speech: "Be grateful for the freedom and sustenance we received, and believe in ourselves." He gathers his friends together, like Colonel Blaze's son who gets the latest intelligence reports by sneaking past Hazel (to the tune of [[Twisted Sister]]'s "We're Not Gonna Take it").

[[Lou Gosset]] applies his "flair for projecting quiet authority" <ref>http://www.louisgossett.com/</ref> to his characterization of an airplane mechanic willing to help Doug plan a clandestine rescue mission. Chappy's Motown jukebox provides an amusing intergenerational contrast with Doug's Heavy Metal. Col. Masters earned Chappy's respect when he stood up for him against some racist pilots.

While some may have felt the film's plot was cheesy, the air combat scenes were quite realistic. <ref>The Israel Air Force puts in an unaccredited cameo role in the ''Iron Eagle'' series. All the aerial work was shot in Israel using IAF pilots and IAF F-16, [[IAI Kfir|Kfir]] and [[F-4 Phantom]] jets. The [[F-16]]s, of course, were painted in [[United States Air Force|USAF]] colors and the Kfirs and Phantoms were supposed to be the evil enemy MiGs. ... the flying is sublime. [http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/dvd3.htm] </ref>

==Critical evaluation==

Despite being panned by the critics, ''Iron Eagle'' contains many iconic themes and ethical lessons for young men. Patriotism, love of father, respect for people of other races, honor, gratitude, loyalty, initiative, perseverance & determination, bravery, teamwork.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Movies]]

Ron Paul

2009-12-29T02:30:56Z

Spotsbunch: /* Paeolibertarian */

[[Image:Ronpaul.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb|Ron Paul]]

'''Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul''' (born 20 August, 1935) is a conservative 10th-term Congressman, a former Air Force Flight Surgeon, a medical doctor (M.D.) and a 2008 presidential candidate from the U.S. state of [[Texas]]. As a [[Republican Party|Republican]], he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] since 1997, and had previously served as the representative from Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.

In Congress he has proposed doing away with personal income taxes, federal antitrust laws and the minimum wage. He advocated pulling the United States out of the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund. Republicans ignore him; most of his bills fail to attract a single co-sponsor.

However in 2009 he has attracted over 300 votes ofr his bipartisan proposal to subject the [[Federal Reserve]] to unprecedented scrutiny by allowing the Government Accountability Office to audit all central bank operations, including its decisions on interest rates, lending to individual banks and transactions with foreign central banks. He has a separate bill to abolish the Fed altogether. (He is the lone sponsor.)

==Paleolibertarian==
Paul is a [[pro-life]] states' rights [[libertarian]], also known as a [[paleolibertarianism|paleolibertarian]]. [[paleolibertarianism|Paleolibertarians]] advocate a limited role of government, low taxes, free markets, strict construction of the [[U.S. Constitution]], and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He has always voted against the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]], and the [[Iraq War]].

==Congressional record==

Ron Paul is noted for his authorship of the We the People Act, an act which removed the ability of the US Supreme Court to hear cases involving discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. He is also noted for submitting several bills banning [[abortion]], and somewhat controversially was the only person to oppose the Darfur Divestment Act of 2007, a bill which disallowed the US government, corporations, and individuals from sending money to or doing business with the janjaweed rebel group of the Sudan.

== Early life and education ==

Dr. Ron Paul was born in [[Pittsburgh]], Pennsylvania to Howard Caspar Paul and Margaret Paul.<ref>http://dailypaul.com/node/53</ref><ref>http://www.wargs.com/political/paul.html</ref> He graduated from Dormont High School in Dormont, Pennsylvania, in 1953. Paul attended Gettysburg College, receiving his [[Bachelor of Arts]] degree in 1957, and the [[Duke University School of Medicine]], receiving [[Doctor of Medicine|M.D.]] in 1961. He did his [[internship]] and [[Residency (medicine)|residency]] at [[Henry Ford Hospital]] in [[Detroit]], Michigan, from 1961 to 1962, and was a [[flight surgeon]] in the [[United States Air Force]] from 1963 to 1968. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in [[obstetrics]]/[[gynecology]], Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have seventeen grandchildren.

Paul is a Baptist.

===Political affiliations and support===
Although a Republican, Paul remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party and addressed its national convention as recently as 2004.<ref>[http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-09-num-10.htm Liberator online archive] on Advocates for self-governing accessed at March 4, 2007</ref>

Paul served as the honorary chairman of and is a current member of the [[Republican Liberty Caucus]], a political action organization dedicated to promoting the ideals of individual rights, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party.<ref>[http://fl.rlc.org/ Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida] accessed at March 4, 2007</ref>

Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (96.8% in 2005-2006), from individuals. <ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006/</ref>

===Political Views===

Paul wants to "reinstate the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and restore the [[Republic]]." He rejects a [[welfare state]] or [[nanny state]] role for the federal government, and advocates a strong [[non-interventionism|non-interventionist]] [[foreign policy]].

He voted against the [[Iraq War]] in 2002 and has offered alternatives such as granting the President authority to grant [[Letters of Marque and Reprisal]], and arming [[pilot]]s. He is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War.

Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the [[North American Union]] proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the [[Secure Fence Act of 2006]], which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

In the May 3, 2007 GOP Debate, Ron Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]] and the abolition of the income tax. As Congressman, he has long fought for the [[Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress|prohibition of direct taxes]] by repeal of the [[16th Amendment to the United States Constitution|16th Amendment]] which created the [[income tax]]. Ron Paul supports a return to the [[gold]] standard of currency particularly newer theorized pure strain gold.

On March 5, 2008, Ron Paul was the only member of the house to vote against a bill "Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and for other purposes"<ref>http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll093.xml FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 93</ref><ref>http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=18214 Congressman Ron Paul's Statement on Gaza Bill</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==

Paul formally declared his candidacy for the Presidential election in 2008 in 12 March, 2007 as a guest on [[Washington Journal]] on [[C-SPAN]].<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA031207.paul2008.EN.74141d9.html | title = Paul formally launches presidential bid | first = Gary | last = Martin | work = San Antonio Express-News | accessdate = 2007-03-13}}</ref> <ref>[http://chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=1CD9E3A0397BCBEC Ron Paul announcing candidacy on C-SPAN]</ref>. In regards to his candidacy, he had a 30-minute interview with online political analyst [[James Kotecki]] regarding foreign policy, Congress and the Constitution, and personal liberties. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/jameskotecki James Kotecki interviews Ron Paul]</ref>

Paul participated (along with nine other Republican presidential candidates) in the [[Ronald Reagan Presidential Library]]'s 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate on May 3, 2007. Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate with 43 percent -- beating second place [[Mitt Romney]] by 5 percentage points.[http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/]

Paul seemed to have dropped slightly in the polls that followed the second Republican debate in Columbia, South Carolina, to 25 percent. This was probably as a result of his suggestion that weekly bombing of [[Iraq]] following [[Operation Desert Fox]] in December 1998 may have contributed sufficiently to [[Arab]] anger at the United States as to make the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] inevitable. Paul was excoriated by [[Rudy Giuliani]], who said that this was the most bizarre explanation for the attacks he had ever heard. Other Republican commentators sought to explain Paul's continued strength in post-debate polls as the result of multiple votes by his supporters or voting by non-Republicans. In response to Rudy Giuliani, the next day at the National Press Club, Ron Paul offered Rudy a book list to read regarding the issue of American foreign policy. These books are ''Imperial Hubris'' by Michael Scheuer, ''Dying to Win'' by Robert Pape, ''Blowback'' by Chalmers Johnson, and ''The 9-11 Commission Report'' by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, declared himself a candidate against Paul in the 2008 Republican primary election to represent the 14th District of Texas in Congress. Dondero (called "Dumbdero among [[libertarians]] dropped out shortly thereafter. Considering the trouncing Paul ended up giving to [[Chris Peden]] in the 2008 republican congressional primary, it was likely for the better.

Paul has garnered large amounts of support from activists, particularly on the [[Internet]]. Many have come up with creative ways to campaign for their candidate. For example, some Paul supporters, who are not officially affiliated with his campaign, purchased a blimp to fly overhead with the phrases "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul" and "Ron Paul Revolution". <ref>http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/</ref> The [[neo-Nazi]] organization [[Stormfront]] also provided [[widget]]s on its internet site to enable people to electronically donate cash to Paul's campaign. Stormfront's founder, former [[Ku Klux Klan]] member Don Black, also gave financial support to Paul's campaign.<ref>[http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/ Lone Star Times] 25 October 2007. Retrieved 24 July 2008.</ref>

He dropped out of the race on June 12, 2008, but will keep spreading his [[message]] by working to help elect [[Libertarianism|libertarian-leaning]] Republicans to [[public]] office around the [[United States of America|U.S.]] <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/12/ron-paul-ends-campaign-will-shift-gears/
Ron Paul Ends Campaign, Will ‘Shift Gears’], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 12, 2008</ref>

=== Possible Campaign censorship by the Media ===

Fox News has more times excluded Ron Paul from its programs, even in at least one case removing him from Iowa Straw Poll results. Fox News' results left out Paul (as well as [[Tom Tancredo]]), even though they scored 9.1% and 13.7%, respectively.

=== Straw Poll results ===

Ron Paul was recently established as the most frequent winner of Straw Poll, as reported on his site: [http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/].

==Ron Paul Quotes==
* on Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], shot down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 - "He was the most principled man in Congress"

==Telephone Hotline==
Ron Paul runs a toll-free [[telephone]] hotline with a recorded message of conservative commentary. It is updated every Monday. <ref>http://www.house.gov/paul/</ref>

==Books by Ron Paul==
* ''Challenge to Liberty''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
* ''Gold, Peace, and Prosperity''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
* ''Ten Myths About Paper Money''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
* ''The Case for Gold''. Reprinted by the [[The Cato Institute|Cato Institute]], 1982; Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. ISBN 0-932790-31-3. ([http://www.mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf])
* ''A Republic, If You Can Keep It''
* ''Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View''. Auburn, Ala.: [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]], 1984.
* ''Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 1987. ([http://www.dailypaul.com/node/65] Book distributed with permission in 7 parts in pdf-format)
* ''A Foreign Policy of Freedom''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 2007. ISBN 0-912453-00-1
* ''The Revolution: A Manifesto'', Hachette Book Group USA, 2008. ISBN 978-0446537513

== References ==

* Gwynne, Sam (1 October, 2001). ''Texas Monthly''.
* Bernstein, Alan (May 23, 1996). “Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent; GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime”, ''The Houston Chronicle'', p. A33.
<references />
* "Ron Paul Background". Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Religion & Politics '08. Pew Research Center. September 2007. http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=15. Retrieved on 2007-10-21.

==External Links==
===Official Sites and Publications===
* [http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Official Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Site]
* [http://www.house.gov/paul/ Official web site of Congressman Ron Paul]
* [http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul Ron Paul's MySpace page]
* [http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul Ron Paul Grassroots Campaign] 
* [http://antiwar.com/paul/archives.php Rep. Ron Paul's Column for Antiwar.com]
* [http://www.mediamonitors.net/ronpaul2.html Commentary by Rep. Paul on U.S. policy in the Middle East]
* [http://www.counterpunch.org/paul03182004.html The Broadcast Indecency Act, An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment] by Ron Paul
* [http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm Is America a Police State?], speech before the U.S. House of Representatives on June 27, 2002

===Positions and Quotations===
* [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul Quotes by Ron Paul on Wikiquote]
* [http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm On the Issues - Ron Paul] issue positions and quotes
* [http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BC031929 Project Vote Smart - Ron Paul]
* [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/ Voting record maintained by the Washington Post]
* [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul SourceWatch Congresspedia - Ron Paul]
* [http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosInd/Paul.htm Congressman Ron Paul and Medical Marijuana]
* "He was the most principled man in Congress" - On 2nd Chairman of [[John Birch Society]], Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983

===Third Party Sources about Ron Paul===
* [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00005906 OpenSecrets.org - Congressional campaign contributions]
* [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/primaries/candidates/paul.html Vote 2008: Ron Paul - Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer]
* [http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P80000748 Federal Election Commission - Presidential campaign contributions]
* [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/ron-paul.html Advocates for Self-Government profile of Ron Paul]
* [http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/ron-paul Virtue Magazine Political profile of Ron Paul]
* [http://dailypaul.com/node/53 The American Dream - Through the Eyes of Mrs. Ron Paul] by Mrs. Ron Paul on TheDailyPaul.

===Articles and Editorials about Ron Paul===
* [http://www.321gold.com/editorials/taylor/taylor031706.html Congressman Ron Paul Talks About Gold, Oil & the Economy]
* [http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr042104.htm National Taxpayers Union Honors Ron Paul as one of 29 Congressmen who are "Taxpayer's Friends"]

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Paul, Ron}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]