Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

John Dalton

2007-05-15T23:59:21Z

Sterile: fix factual error

'''John Dalton''' proposed that all matter is composed of [[atom]]s. He also proposed the ideas of [[element]]s and [[compound]]s. He was the first since [[Democritus]] in ancient times to do so.

Starlight problem

2007-05-15T22:22:46Z

Sterile: /* Young Earth Creationist View Regarding Starlight */ it's = it is

The Starlight Problem is an argument in favour of a universe with a long history - many billions of years - as opposed to the six thousand year age many creationists interpert based on the Genesis narative.

Given that the speed of light cannot possibly be exceeded - a conclusion of general relativity, and to which no exceptions have yet been found - the most distant visible objects cannot be further away than the distance light could travel since the universe was created. Thus, the distance to the furthest visible object can be used to establish a lower limit on the age of the universe.

Using parallax calculations, the milky way galaxy alone can be directly observed to have a diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years. Calculations based on the observed brightness of supernovas of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a star cluster approximately thirteen billion light-years distant, observed by the Hubble telescope using gravitational lensing<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3490657.stm</ref>.

Several solutions have been proposed by creationists to explain how a young universe may be reconciled with these observations. Some of these may be viewed on
[[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]

== Young Earth Creationist View Regarding Starlight ==
In regards to the question of how one can see [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away, [[young earth]] [[creationist]]s [[scientist]]s commonly mention several things. First, these scientists assert that the [[Big Bang Theory]] has a star light-travel time problem and cite the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> Secondly, creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp</ref> Thirdly, the work of young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes an alternative, creationist view, by theorizing the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Logical fallacy

2007-05-15T21:39:28Z

Sterile: /* See Also */

A '''Logical fallacy''' is any argument that suffers from a crippling logical flaw.

[[Logic]] is a demanding discipline. Conclusions either follow from certain previously stated premises, or they do not. This is not, however, to say that a conclusion is always false if the argument supporting it is invalid. For example:

#All undergraduates are human.
#All sophomores are human.
#Therefore, all sophomores are undergraduates.

One could as easily argue that all undergraduates are also sophomores, and the argument would be equally valid--or invalid in this case. However, one can establish the truth of the conclusion in another way--in this case, by [[definition]].

Logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as lying. A ''lie'' in logic is a premise that one offers while knowing that it is false. False premises can still be part of valid arguments, but conclusions having false premises to support them will be unreliable. A logical fallacy, then, is a flawed argumental structure, one that would lead to an unreliable conclusion even when its premises are true.

The following is a catalog of logical fallacies, with each one given a separate heading, to make them easier to cite in other articles.

==Catalog of Logical Fallacies==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|type}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|type}}</nowiki> template to insert the above warning on a page containing a ''logical fallacy''. Replace the word "type" with the name of the fallacy to link the warning label to the appropriate page.
</table>
===Argumentum ad hominem===

: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

([[Latin]]: "Argument directed toward the man"); An argument that attacks the character of one holding a contrary view, rather than attacking the view itself. ''Name-calling'' is a particularly crude form of this fallacy. ''Argumentum ad hominem'' is usually an attempt to accuse the other person of lying without saying so directly, or saying that his premises are somehow incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, or simply unreliable because they are self-serving. However, this is not good logic. If one suspects another of lying, then one should attempt to disprove the premises. One can raise a ''suspicion'' of deliberate falsehood on the part of another who has offered deliberate falsehood in the past. But the most that that can accomplish is to suggest that the other person's premises are unreliable and therefore require third-party corroboration.

===Overgeneralization===
An argument that attempts to apply a principle to circumstances beyond the scope of its original formulation or of any reliable demonstration. The application of [[Isaac Newton]]'s original theory of relative velocity (which is that it was simply additive) to speeds approaching that of light was an overgeneralization, as [[Albert Einstein]] would later show.

Overgeneralization also is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

([[Latin]]: "It does not follow"); An argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ([[Latin]] "Argument proceeding from clout"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

A classic example of argument from authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. This kind of argument also appears in commercial advertising or political electioneering.

===Proof by numbers===
This is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. "Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology. One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples, too many to mention here, of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] make two more.

===Proof by assertion===
An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]].

===Circular reasoning===
[[Circular reasoning]] is a form of proof-by-assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

===Argument from silence===
Argument from silence (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') is an assertion that a proposition is false merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to confirm it--or that a proposition is true merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to contradict it. "The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question.

This is the opposite extreme from "manufacturing facts to support a theory," described below. The best aid to striking a balance that avoids these two opposing fallacies is [[Occam's razor]].

===Proving too much===
A form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Double standard===
The unequal use of a criterion, and its different application in different cases. This is actually a form of [[hypocrisy]].

===Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong===
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]''

The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion.

===Manufacturing facts from a theory===
: ''Main article: [[Manufacturing facts from a theory]]''

The assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. We deal here with the assumption of a fact ''not in evidence.'' In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact ''have failed'', the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and "someone hasn't tried hard enough" to find it. This is ''especially'' true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" ''could not possibly exist.''

This is yet another form of proof-by-assertion, and is the source of many controversies in modern [[astronomy]], some of them strikingly bitter.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to aver (that is, assert as true) or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "Consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method.

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Tautology===
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

===Contradiction===
A [[contradiction]] is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradition, some of the premises must be false.

Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above).

===Conflation===
[[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges."

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.)

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. A political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

== Related examples of improper reasoning ==
The following categories of poor reasoning are difficult to classify; some might not wish to classify them as logical fallacies ''per se'', but they are still, in most cases, indefensible:

===Infinite regression===
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''
An [[infinite regression]] results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

Is infinite regression ever defensible? If so, when? A [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|debate]] on this issue is now underway.

== Logical fallacy and the educational establishment ==
Today, logic is offered as an elective in [[college]], not as a requirement. Various graduate-school admissions councils (among them the [http://www.mba.com/ Graduate Management Admissions Council] and the [http://www.lsac.org/ Law School Admissions Council]) have long recognized this fact and today test specifically for an appplicant's ability to [[Critical thinking|think critically]] and apply logic.

Thus the major admissions tests (Graduate Management Admission Test and Law School Admissions Test) feature questions on logical reasoning. A typical question would present an argument and ask either:

# What the argument assumes,
# What sort of evidence, if established, would significantly strengthen (or weaken) the argument, or
# Why the argument, as presented, is flawed.

Still other questions present arguments and then ask the test-taker what reasonable conclusions one might draw from them. Occasionally they present sets of two facts that might seem to contradict one another and ask the test-taker to explain how both facts can be true at once.

Many of the arguments presented (the ''stimuli'') and the wrong answer choices offered illustrate classic logical fallacies, often strikingly. Examples of ''argumentum ad hominem'' and the closely related fallacy of ''non sequitur'', to name two key errors, abound in these questions.

Yet for all this effort in trying to identify weaknesses in critical thinking, colleges tend to discourage critical thinking in other ways, mainly in that [[professor]]s often commit the very sort of logical fallacies that these tests, for example, challenge their test-takers with.

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]

== See Also ==
"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Galactose

2007-05-09T19:41:54Z

Sterile: image

Galactose(C6H12O6)is a monosaccharide, or simple sugar. This sugar, when bonded with [[glucose]] creates [[lactose]], the sugar found in dairy. It is an important sugar in infants, transmitted via breastmilk. Galactose is the building block for carbohydrates associated with glycolipids and glycoproteins. In laymans terms, it is essential for storing information and building tissue. It is also known as "brain sugar" because it can be found in the brain and other nervous tissue.

Galactose is more common than [[glucose]] but can only be used as an energy source after being changed into glucose by the liver. As with all essential [[sugar]]s, galactose is necessary for cell communication. If galactose is missing in the diet, a [[disease]] can develop. Studies have shown that high amounts of galactose in the body can prevent or help reverse the effects of colon cancer. It has also been shown to inhibit the growth of tumors, especially in the [[liver]]. It is also important in [[reproduction]], as it helps in the formation of [[sperm]].
[[Image:galactose.gif]]
[[category:chemistry]]

File:Galactose.gif

2007-05-09T19:41:26Z

Sterile:

Glucose

2007-05-09T15:29:20Z

Sterile:

'''Glucose'''(C6H12O6, also known as ''D-glucose'', ''dextrose'', and ''blood sugar'') is the main source of energy in most animals and plants. It can be found in almost all plants, because it is the product of [[photosynthesis]]. In humans, it is the major source of energy. Upon ingesting glucose, it is absorbed into the blood stream by the [[small intestine]], carried to the [[liver]] via the [[portal vein]], where some is stored, and the rest reenters the [[circulatory system]]. A lot is stored in the muscles and various other cells.

When there is not enough glucose in your body, you start experiencing the symptoms of [[hypoglycemia]]. Because the lack of glucose inhibits your cells from operating properly, you will feel fatigued, light headed, and nauseaus. In extreme cases, people can go into comas. A common disorder called [[diabetes]] is caused by your body's inability to use glucose productively. This can happen when your body doesn't produce enough [[insolin]], or you become "glucose intolerant" from lack of excersize and bad diet.

Glucose is used a lot in cooking, especially baking and making various types of sweets. It is used so commonly in baking because it is readily [[ferment]]ed, or fed on, by [[yeast]]. It is used to make a lot of candies and frostings because it doesn't crystalize easily.
[[Image:Glucose.gif]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

File:Glucose.gif

2007-05-09T15:28:58Z

Sterile:

Talk:Carbon dating

2007-05-08T23:06:30Z

Sterile: /* Reference #2 */

== Huge errors on this page ==

Firstly, there is an claim that carbon dating had wrongly measured the age of some carbonate rocks, oil etc. Ofc it has, because no one in their right minds and knowing even the basics of carbon dating would try to measure those with this method... Offcourse the result is wrong, it's like saying one was trying to measure weight with measuring tape. The whole concept of giving false measurements as a "proof" that the method dosen't work is ridiculous. Who knows how many measuring errors has happened with measuring tape, but no one is claimin that because person "A" measured the lenght of an tree wrong using a measuring tape, that the measuring tapes arent reliable. Im deleting that whole section. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: This is factual and informative information. Why censor it? The only reason that "no one in their [sic] right minds ... would try to measure those with this method" is because of significant limitations in carbon dating, which is precisely the point. The math alone does not predict that dating rocks and oil should be as unreliable as the results show.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::So you really think there should be an collection of wrong results when trying to measure weight with measuring tape on the pages descriping the measuring tape? Just to prove that the measuring tape is limited on measuring the lenght? You can't measure things such as rocks, oil etc with carbon dating, from the basic reason that the carbon in it is from petroleum. So no one who knows anything about carbon dating would never even try that. And what do you have to say about the general measuring errors? Do you really think that we should now start to post diffrent wrong reasult people have gotten when they where using a volt meter, measuring tape or scales? That makes no sense at all, as said before, it would be ridiculous and would really like to hear why we should do this. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 11:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Changing decay rates==

Further corrections i would like to make are allso removing the following sentences: "First, it is impossible to prove scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time." Indeed, for this to happen laws of physics would have needed to change. And to claim that... Well, im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments? Firstly, for it to be any help for the young earth creationists, it would have needed to happen during the last 10 000 years. And the laws of physics to change so much that it would change the half time of C-14 atom... Oh boy. I see no place for claim like this on encyclopedia. There is no evidence of anything like this ever happening, and even the idea of this is so strange to modern science that it's once again just absurd to offer that as an excuse for considering carbon dating not to be valid. If this excuse is accepted here, it can be used on every other scientific article here. They all rely on the fact that laws of physics arent changing around. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 11:33, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:You're "speechless" about a position of Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac and many physicists today??? Maybe what you meant to say is that you've never heard this. OK, most people (including physics majors) don't hear about this. But, please, let's be at least a little open-minded. I've updated the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::First i would like to quote myself: "Well, im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments?" You are claiming that Nobel Laurete Paul Dirac claimed so? It has been long known that for example at the time of the big bang, when scientists presume that the laws of physics where allso born, there might have been some changes. But the key here is that for some one to claim that the laws of physics would have changed so much on earth in so reasent history that the halftime of C-14 atom would have been cut down to 1/5th or something around that is just beyond what any scientist would ever claim. It would mean catastroph to other things here. And if claim like that would be accepted here to undermine the Carbon dating, it could, as said earlyer be used to undermine any scientific findings. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:01, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

: You've gone from being "speechless" to saying "it has long [been] known." I'm only interested in an open-minded discussion here. If your mind is made up, and you'll treat anything contrary to your opinion with derision, then this is not productive for you or me. We're both better off working on other entries.

: If the C-14 decay rate varies proportionately with the age of the universe, and if that age is, say 5,000 years rather than 10 billion years, then obviously the C-14 decay rate could have been many orders of magnitude larger a thousand years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::It would offcourse help, if one would read why i was speechless, ill quote myself the thirth time: "im speechles, who exactly is claiming that laws of physics have changed so dramatically during these few years and based on what experiments?" But i do think you allready read that, and are just trying not to answer the questions itself. Those questions being. If something like that would have happened in the last 10 000 years, how would anything have survived it? If this is valid argument here, why can't it be used to question everything else in science? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::: There is a circularity in your line of reasoning. You concede the decay rates may have changed, but implicity use the current decay rate to estimate the age of the universe.

::: Once one concedes that the decay rates may be declining, as one must, then the rates cannot be used to infer the age of the universe. If the universe is 5000 years old, then the decay rate first declined rapidly thousands of years ago. The half-life may have only been 100 years at the time of Christ. I don't see how such a half-life would make any difference to the sustenance of life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, there is no evidence that decay rates would be declining, as said, that would brake the laws of physics as we know them. Some scientist have speculated that in some special circustamses, like during the very first moments of Big bang those laws might have been under a change, other than that, its all highly speculative talk around fine-structure constant and the changing of the four fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. None of this has ever been proven to happen and for it to happen in a scale that would change the decay rates enough to make earth 6000 years old... One thing tho is "sure" if that would have happened, and the half time of C-14 had changed enought that it would make any diffrence in age measurements, it would have caused catastrohic consequenses for all life on earth. Mayby even for the whole universe. Simple reason for this is that you cant only change the half time of C-14 it would be more wide spread. This kind of change in laws of physics would make the existing unstable nucleids less stable, and will also make currently stable nucleids unstable. Which would be very very '''very''' bad thing. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

While i remember, i would like to allso point out that the discussion about the "wrongly measured" Carbon rock/oil samples has no conclusion yet. If there is nothing you would like to add to it, i really think those examples should be removed on the basis off what i said on the discussion at the top of the page. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

For decay rates to change, you'd have to drastically change some of the laws of physics and/or the rest mass of several types of subatomic particles, if this were to happen, chances are entire solar systems will disintegrate and some chemical compounds would not be stable anymore, it is likely something as complicated as carbon based live would die: meaning ALL carbon based life in the universe.

Dirac's ideas about gravitation are highly speculative, highly criticized and deal only with small changes over billions of years, so minute they wouldn't even be detectable over the course of 60,000 years.

Speculation about changing laws of physics are a desperate attempt at creating confusion among those who have accepted evolution to be true.
They were inserted here by the same person who argued that there was no way to figure out the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over hundreds of thousands of years (there are, and carbon dating is limited to 60,000 years anyway) in an attempt to discredit carbon dating.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::That's really an answer here? Changing laws of physics? C'mon.... Will gravity be back tomorrow? I sure hope so. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:08, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== the 50,000 year mark ==

<s>The sentence "For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old" is factually incorrect. After 50,000 years carbon-14 would have undergone over 8 half-lives and essentially there rate of change has reached a screeching halt. It is the result of both the small amout of carbon-14 and the length of the half-life that prevent dating back to 50,000 years. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)</s> This was addressed in the time I wrote the comment.

== Creationwiki ==

I notice that one of the references used to support some of the stronger claims on this page is Creationwiki. Is that really a good source? Does it really belong here? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, where else can you get references in support of creationism?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Feel free to find more neutral sites. I'll do it myself eventually. Nothing there is controversial. The first criticism of it, in fact, was that it was too obvious to include.

: As to the other comments above, they are criticizing logic more than anything. Yes, many physicists (including Dirac) feel (have felt) that the laws of physics are not invariant over time. I'll find more cites but instead of distracting me on the talk page, you could find sites too. Someone said that life couldn't function unless C-14's half-life is constant. Really, do you think we need a 5000-year half life of C-14 to have life? None can exist without that fundamental decay rate? Physicists think other constants that are more fundamental have changed, so I don't attach much significance to a claim that C-14's decay rate cannot possibly change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I explained everything didn't I? Decay rates depend on rest-masses of subatomic particles among other things, these same rest-masses also determine which atomic particles and which chemical bonds can exist: imagine what would happen if all the nuclei in the universe would disintegrate...

I also explained Dirac's ideas were about minute changes over billions of years.

Do I have to explain myself again, or should I let a lawyer lecture me about Dirac's theories?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Yeah, you do have to lecture me if you think the laws of physics, including the decay rate for C-14, has never changed. And after you lecture me, lecture every physicist who ever studied the Big Bang, and all their students. And then lecture every one who has ever studied [[Karl Popper]] and understands what science is. And then nominate yourself for the Nobel Prize!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, the source you cites suggests that one law of physics has changed. However, Middle Man et al are right about how sweeping a change on the half life of carbon would be. In science, every piece interlocks with the other, such that a change to one implies a great change to the other. SO, changing the half-life of carbon to change would imply a change in the base atomic structure of carbon, which would prevent the ability of carbon to bond as readily as it does, which would destroy the reason that makes carbon the inherent building block of life. You can't just say "the laws of physics changed" without realizing the full extent of what you're saying - you're saying that the very nature of life, and the very structure of atoms, has changed within the past 6000 years. And I'm sure you realize that Karl Popper cuts ''against'' you - your little "theory" is unfalsifiable, aside from being absurd for the reasons stated above.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::I implemented those changes, since the challenges had been posed & unanswered in a while.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: It was my rebuttal that went unanswered.

::: There is no reason or evidence to think that life cannot function with a shorter half-life for C-14. Your comments reflect nothing more than a view that the world has to be a way that you believe it to be. More open-mindedness is expected of editors on this site. Yes, C-14 half's life may have been different, just as scientists are suggesting that many other aspects of the laws of physics were also different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you misunderstand. For carbon's half life isn't just a variable that gets changed like you change the value of X in algebra. Rather, it depends on subatomic masses of particles. So, to change C-14's half life, you'd have to change subatomic mass numbers. But if you change subatomic mass numbers, carbon can't bond as easily as it does, and life can't exist. I'm not saying "the world has to be my way" just because I like it that way - I'm saying "the world has to be my way" because otherwise there would be no life on earth. Finally, saying one law of physics might change doesn't mean that they're all up for grabs! And seriously, you're lecturing ''me'' on closed-mindedness?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I'm sorry, but it is close-minded to insist that life can only exist a certain way. You won't find a single credible scientist to make such a close-minded claim. Be more open-minded and admit the obvious: it's possible that life could have existed with different half-lives for C-14 and other differences as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:43, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I'm telling you it's not. Part of the miracle of life in the universe is that it can only exist in a slim number of circumstances. Changing C-14 would change the whole thing. To analogize, it would not be "closed minded" to say that, if the charge of the electron were slightly larger or slightly less, life would cease to exist - it's just true (Hawking, ''Brief History of time''). Do ''you'' have a cite supporting the idea that changing C-14 would ''not'' prohibit life from forming? I ask because mainstream science disagrees with you, and before making such an outrageous claim, I'm '''''sure''''' you must've done some research. If your whole argument depends on me being "closed-minded," and yet you refuse to look up the science on it, I think it's fairly clear who's won.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Please find a source that specifically speaks to a change of the half life of Carbon-14 ''within the past 6000 years''. Your article discussing change in an unrelated matter of physics over billions of years just doesn't cut it. Then, discuss it here, and we'll include it after it's been fully discussed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== From radiocarbon dating ==

This is from an older entry entitled "radiocarbon dating". Please identify any information here that you feel might improve this entry. A redirect from radiocarbon dating is being inserted to send it to "carbon dating"

'''Radiocarbon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of organic material by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 present.

The method is based on the fact that the carbon-12 [[isotope]] of carbon is more stable, and therefore more common, than the [[radioactivity | radioactive]] carbon-14 isotope. Most of the carbon in the earth is buried deep underground, where any carbon-14 [[radioactive decay | decays]], leaving behind carbon-12. Nitrogen-14 atoms in the stratosphere are often struck by neutrons, converting them to carbon-14 atoms. But carbon-14 in the atmosphere mixes with ordinary carbon-12 and finds it way into all living creatures. Therefore the concentration of carbon-14 is higher in living creatures and in the atmosphere than it is in dead or buried forms of carbon.

Thus, archaeologists use radiocarbon dating to measure the age of dead bodies, fossils, and burnt wood. If the concentration of carbon-14 is almost as high as in the atmosphere, then the specimen was recently alive. If it is much lower, then the specimen has been dead a long time.
The mathematical formula that is used to figure the time since death depends on the the measured concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and also on the [[half-life]] of carbon-14 (the time it takes for half the carbon-14 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of carbon-14 is commonly given as 5730 ± 40 years; however a global standard half-life of 5568 ± 30 years is also often employed.

Obviously, this formula depends on the atmosphere remaining roughly constant in its composition over time. Insofar as the natural level and distribution of carbon-14 varies over time, due to to atmospheric disturbances, the formula will need to be adjusted. For example, in the last few decades, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere has increased the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. To account for this, standard calibration curves are used to take account of known chronological fluctuations, and results can be obtained which are rarely more than 700 years out.

Other isotopes with longer half-lives can also be used to date objects. However, each method has its own drawbacks.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] point out that the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 would have been affected by the [[Great Flood|global flood]], as the flood buried massive quantities of living things,<ref>Batten 2007, p. 71.</ref> thus invalidating dating results from that era as secular science does not allow for this. As such dating results ''presume'' that there was no flood, the resulting dates are not ''proof'' that there was no flood, as anti-creationists often charge.

: The entire thing is important...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==See also==

[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]

== Bibliography ==

* Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).
*Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).
[[Category:Earth science]]
* Batten, Don et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf ''What about carbon dating?''], Chapter 4 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', Creation Book Publishers, 2007, ISBN 978-0949906625.

== Notes ==
<references />

== I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting. ==

Please don't troll, and tell me why you reverted. The changes only made your science less misleading and wrong. As stated above...
#You give no source for the "carbon dating can only prove which is older."
#The carbon content of the atmosphere can be discerned by ice cores.
#Changing the C-14 half-life would require changing all of atomic physics in a very bad way.
#Carbon dating obviously doesn't work on oil, et al, and that shouldn't be portrayed as a "flaw."

I'm sure you have good answers to these points, or you wouldn't have reverted without using the talk page first, right?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Reference #2==
The article used for reference 2 says that Dirac's theory still hasn't been proven and that there isn't strong enough evidence that the laws have changed. Maybe this reference and claim should be removed until a better source (if one exists) can be found. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:To be honest, I'm really skeptical. If Dirac were right, he'd be the winner of a second Nobel Prize. And people usually listen to Nobel Prize winners. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 19:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Ozone

2007-05-08T22:25:00Z

Sterile:

'''Ozone''' is a chemical [[compound]] consisting of three [[oxygen]] atoms. It is represented by the symbol O3.

It is unstable at standard temperatures and pressures, and a powerful [[oxidizer]]. At the earth's surface it occurs naturally as a result of electrical discharges, most prominently, [[lightning]]. It is also created by [[man-made]] sparks, such as in an electrical motor.

In the stratosphere it serves a very important function, by acting to filter out most of the sun's ultraviolet radiation.

Scientists have measured an annual, tempororary thinning layer of ozone over the north and south poles, called an "ozone hole".<ref>http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html</ref>

What is controversial is much of this is a result of the breakdown of [[chlorofluorocarbons]] and the release of elemental [[chlorine]], which acts as [[catalyst]]s to break down the O3 molecules.<ref>Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) themselves are not involved in the catalytic process; upon reaching the stratosphere, they are subject to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation that decompose the CFC and release atomic chlorine. [http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/ozndplt.html Catalytic destruction of ozone] </ref>

[[Image:Ozonemech.gif|framed|The mechanism by which ozone is broken down in the stratosphere by Cl atoms. Note that the propagation steps repeat thousands of time, such that one molecule of a CFC can destroy thousands of molecules of O3]]

*In April 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere shrank as much as 5 percent over the United States in the past 10 years.
*A minority opinion holds that ozone depletion has little to do with CFCs and that the ozone hole may be more natural than man-made. S. Fred Singer, an environmental scientist at the University of Virginia, has argued that a rise in methane or changes in the sun's cycle may affect ozone. He also believes the lack of historical data about ozone depletion makes it difficult to determine if similar changes occurred centuries before hairspray cans were invented. [http://www.coaleducation.org/issues/DEPLET.HTM]
<references/>

[[category:Chemistry]]

File:Ozonemech.gif

2007-05-08T22:23:12Z

Sterile:

Talk:Ozone

2007-05-08T21:59:12Z

Sterile: sign

==Theory of CFCs breaking down O3==
Ed, just wondering why you said it was a theory that O3 is broken down by chlorofluorocarbons? It has been observed. 
Here is the common chemical reaction: 
CFCl3 + UV(~310nm) ==> Cl + garbage 
Cl +O3 ==> ClO + O2 
(UV radiation breaks down a CFC molecule and releases a free chlorine atom. The chlorine atom reacts with ozone breaking it down to molecular oxygen plus highly unstable chlorine monoxide.)
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

What I said was:

:Some activists '''claimed''' that this ozone layer has been '''threatened''' in recent decades by the release of [[chlorofluorocarbons]], '''on the theory that''' these act as [[catalyst]]s to break down the O3 molecules.

You have to take all three emphasized words together. They claim there was a threat to the atmosphere. Their claim was entirely based on theory - not on observation.

It's like some of the evolutionary claims about biochemistry: someone theorizes that the flagellum or the eye '''could''' come into being as the result of gradual accumulation of helpful mutations. It's just a theory - not a [[fact]] - until it is proven.

Newton's theory of gravitation is also based on a formula:

<math>F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}</math>

But it can't be called a "Law" of motion unless it fits the observed facts (see [[astronomy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It is in general chemistry textbooks from which I teach that light breaks the C-Cl bond, and that the Cl* can then abstract an oxygen atom from a ozone molecule. That can be determined by simple bond energies. This is not a liberal conspiracy. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 17:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ozone

2007-05-08T21:58:38Z

Sterile:

Ozone

2007-05-08T21:55:23Z

Sterile:

Ozone

2007-05-08T21:52:32Z

Sterile:

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-07T12:34:23Z

Sterile:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to '''be'''.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That wasn't me, it was [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sir... ==

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must ''at least consider the possibility'' that this is because it ''deserves'' it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary<ref>''kuhn-'''trair'''-ee'' - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary</ref> zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

<references/>

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
I put what I've put at another place on CP, with some additions:

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like? After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. In the words of Barack Obama: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them.

And continuing: This should be required reading for all new contributors here. Let all the newcomers, of whatever political persuation, decide whether they really want to be a part of this project. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I can't imagine the content page genuinely offending anyone. But offense or not, behavior can and should be scientifically studied. We have hundreds of journals publishing papers on behavior about every aspect of society. What's wrong with studying liberal behavior? I wouldn't object to a study of conservative behavior, styles of arguing, conduct on a website, etc. In fact, I'd welcome it, because we can all learn from it and improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Who said anything about criticizing anyone? I'm just saying that it's obvious to me that the management has already judged the editors on this site, not by their edits, but by their political persuations. I'm embarrased for Conservapedia that this essay even exists. If you can't see the problem with this essay, then you are blinded by your own views. (And sure, go ahead, block me. At this point I don't know why any person--conservative or liberal--would truly want to continue to edit here, if the management is this biased. Conservapedia is doomed if it isolates its volunteer editors.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== The 6-times criticism ==

Well, I would say it's because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. However, I won't start an argument. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-07T01:40:11Z

Sterile:

Carbon dating

2007-05-06T20:12:55Z

Sterile: /* Limits of Carbon Dating */

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of 14C to 12C in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the 14C isotope decays into N-14, while 12C does not. The loss in 14C is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that 50% of the 14C in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the 14C in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Because of the small amount of 14C remaining after 50,000 years, the rate of decay becomes small.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years: nor has it been proven that it has ''not'' remained constant. (Notably, the decay of other isotopes that have half-lives over the course of days to microseconds all follow the characteristic first-order kinetics; hundereds of isotopes follow this pattern, and their properties extenstively have been studied.) Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco ''Chronicle''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref> The "change" discussed here - in a study that is still very controversial - occurred over billions of years, though, and not in the near enough future to have had an effect on the utility of carbon dating (since carbon dating is only useful to date life within the past 50,000 years, only a change within 50,000 years would affect the dating method).

Second, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which 14C is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low 14C proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==
Carbon dating cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of 14C is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include the inability to date carbonate rocks, which by confound the science behind the dating technique.<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T20:01:07Z

Sterile: /* Limits of Carbon Dating */

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of 14C to 12C in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the 14C isotope decays into N-14, while 12C does not. The loss in 14C is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that 50% of the 14C in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the 14C in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Because of the small amount of 14C remaining after 50,000 years, the rate of decay becomes small.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco ''Chronicle''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of 14C to 12C was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which 14C is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low 14C proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more 14C than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.{{fact}}

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of 14C is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T20:00:42Z

Sterile: /* Limits of Carbon Dating */

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of 14C to 12C in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the 14C isotope decays into N-14, while 12C does not. The loss in 14C is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that 50% of the 14C in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the 14C in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Because of the small amount of 14C remaining after 50,000 years, the rate of decay becomes small.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco ''Chronicle''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of 14C to 12C was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which 14C is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low 14C proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more 14C than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of 14C is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:59:36Z

Sterile: further clean-up in correct scientific style

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of 14C to 12C in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the 14C isotope decays into N-14, while 12C does not. The loss in 14C is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that 50% of the 14C in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the 14C in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Because of the small amount of 14C remaining after 50,000 years, the rate of decay becomes small.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of 14C to 12C was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which 14C is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low 14C proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more 14C than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of 14C is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the 14C remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:57:08Z

Sterile:

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Because of the small amount of C-14 remaining after 50,000 years, the rate of decay becomes small.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:54:39Z

Sterile: sp

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:52:36Z

Sterile: /* Known Limits in Carbon Dating */ add

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it hsd not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present with precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old. However, isotopes with longer half-lives may be used.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:51:53Z

Sterile: /* Known Limits in Carbon Dating */ accuracy vs. precision: see an elementary science book.

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it hsd not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it the technique cannot give accurate numbers if the sample is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The inaccuracy for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present precision enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:50:24Z

Sterile: /* Limits of Carbon Dating */ impossible and have not been proven are different

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it hsd not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it gives errors for material that is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The errors for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:49:22Z

Sterile:

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it is impossible to prove scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it gives errors for material that is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The errors for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:48:44Z

Sterile: /* Known Errors in Carbon Dating */ Errors is wrong; error would mean the range to which the technique can measure; limit is the maximum range it can measure.

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it is impossible to prove scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Limits in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it gives errors for material that is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The errors for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

Carbon dating

2007-05-05T19:47:00Z

Sterile: add pic

Carbon dating, or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or things made from anything that once lived.

The technique is based on comparing the levels of C-14 and C-12 isotopes in the sample. When the sample was living, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the material is the same as in the atmosphere. But after death the C-14 isotope decays into N-14, while C-12 does not. The loss in C-14 is then used to estimate how long ago the sample died, which is typically the same as how long the sample existed.

The rate of decay of C-14 is such that 50% of the C-14 in the sample will decay in 5730 years: 50% of the C-14 in the sample is left, after 11460 years 25% will be left, after 17190 years 12.5% will be left, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms)<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1006.html</ref>, measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730. Most decay comes to a stop after 50,000 years.]]

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

First, it is impossible to prove scientifically whether the rate of decay of C-14 has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years. Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.<ref>"The idea that nature's laws change over time was proposed in the 1930s by one of the titans in the history of physics, Paul Dirac of England. According to Dirac's large numbers hypothesis, the force of gravity changed over time." See Keay Davidson, "Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics," San Francisco Chronicle[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/09/MNG5LCLEU41.DTL]</ref>

Second, estimating the age of material using carbon dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as today, which is also impossible to prove scientifically. "[T]he proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and it is not at all certain that the curve is 'well behaved.'"<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, "Uncertainty in Carbon Dating"[http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm]</ref>

Third, "various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Due to these fundamental limitations, the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn from carbon dating is that material X is older than material Y when X has lost more C-14 than Y has. It is not possible to determine, with any degree of scientific certainty, how much older X is than Y.

== Known Errors in Carbon Dating ==

Even the staunchest advocates of carbon dating admit that it gives errors for material that is younger than 150 years or older than 50,000 years. The errors for material younger than 150 years is ascribed to changes in the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html</ref>

Since the half-life of C-14 is only 5715 years, after 50,000 years only about 1/500th of the C-14 remains - and since even initially it is only present as a minute proportion of the whole (0.0000000001% of all Carbon atoms), measuring the exact quantity present accurately enough to be of use for dating purposes is extremely difficult. For this reason, scientists do not generally attempt to carbon date material that is believed to be older than about 50,000-60,000 years old.

Additional anomalous results from carbon dating, which reinforce its limitations, include:<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating</ref>

*coal, natural gas, and carbonate rocks have yielded dates based on carbon dating between 30,000 and 60,000 years old;

*some unfossilized dinosaur bones have yielded dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old {{fact}}; and

*CO2 from gas wells have yielded dates less than 30,000 years old.

== References ==

<references/>

File:C-14decay.JPG

2007-05-05T19:42:41Z

Sterile:

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-05-05T18:25:46Z

Sterile: /* Political debates */

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

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

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]
# [[Conservapedia:Front Page| Front Page - Encylopedia? Or Propaganda?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Sarkozy | Enamoured of Sarkozy]]
# [[Conservapedia:Holier Than Thou | Holier Than Thou]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, why did God lie about what the outcome would be (Genesis 2:17),9 while the serpent told the truth (Genesis 3:5,22)? ]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia: 'το πνευμα ἁγιον'; how would you translate it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Are there any people who visit this site and contribute to debates that aren’t Christian?? ]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Are Souls Unlimited?]]
# [[The current front page focus on homosexuality]]
# [[Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Who were the first Saints?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britian become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]

==Scientific debates==

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

==Debates about Conservapedia==

# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Communists at Conservapedia|Should known communists be banned from editing at Conservapedia??]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Should I remove the gross Spanish profanity passing itself off as translations in several articles?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Why do so many topical debates descend into embarassing personal attacks?]]
# [[Why are editors allowed to use personal blogs and other unsourced sites as citations?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Does Aschlafly deserve an article on himself?]]
# [[Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are we living in a computer simulation?| Are we living in a computer simulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Who named our planet "Earth"?]]
# [[Should TK and some of the other Sysops on here Lighten Up?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does your mom go to college?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]

Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?

2007-05-05T18:24:25Z

Sterile: New page: I can't figure out this one, and I hope someone here can. ~~~~

I can't figure out this one, and I hope someone here can. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Carbon dating

2007-05-05T18:00:30Z

Sterile: /* the 50,000 year mark */

Talk:Carbon dating

2007-05-05T17:59:35Z

Sterile: the 50,000 year mark

Potassium-argon dating

2007-05-05T16:18:05Z

Sterile:

'''Potassium-argon dating''' is a method for estimating the age of volcanic rocks by measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 present.

The method is based on the fact that the potassium-40 [[isotope]] of potassium [[radioactive decay | decay]]s over time to form argon-40. The useful fact about these two substances is that at normal temperatures, potassium is a solid, but argon is a gas. Therefore, during volcanic eruptions, any argon that is present escapes from the rock. But after the rock solidifies, any potassium-40 that is present continues to decay, and the argon-40 that is produced cannot escape from the rock.

Thus, geologists use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of volcanic rocks. If the concentration of argon-40 is almost zero, then the rock was formed recently. If it is high relative to the amount of potassium-40 present, then the rock is old. Archaeologists and biologists are also sometimes able to use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of artifacts and fossils, when these have become trapped in or buried under volcanic rock.

The mathematical formula that is used to figure the age of the rock depends on the [[half-life]] of potassium-40 (the time it takes for half the potassium-40 in a given sample to decay). The half-live of potassium-40 is approximately 1.26 billion years (that is, 1.26x109 years).

Obviously, this formula depends on the laws of physics remaining constant over time. If the rate of [[radioactive decay]] has changed over time, the formula will not give correct dates. Most scientists believe that the rate of potassium-argon decay has not changed over the history of the earth. However, some creationists have argued that God increased the rate of potassium-argon decay during the first few days of Creation, thus causing the potassium-argon dating method to give erroneously old date readings.{{fact}}

Other isotopes with shorter half-lives can also be used to date objects- however, each method has its own drawbacks. For instance, the decay of carbon-14 is often used to complement the potassium-argon dating of [[dinosaur]] [[fossils]].

==See also==

[[radiometric dating | Radiometric dating methods]]

==References==

Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).

Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).
[[Category:Earth science]]

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-04T19:28:11Z

Sterile: /* Swearing */

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin [[FISA]] out of this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like. After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 15:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Delta

2007-05-04T15:21:53Z

Sterile:

Delta can refer to several things:

*[[Delta (letter)|The fourth letter of the Greek alphabet]] (Δ)
*[[Delta (river)|The sediment build up at the mouth of a river]]
*[[Delta wing|The shape of certain jet airplanes wings]]
*[[Delta (math)|In mathematics, difference or change]]
*[[Delta Airlines|An American airline company]]

[[category:disambiguation]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-05-04T15:20:16Z

Sterile: /* If this is a joke, it's not that funny. */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

== Alternative version of the article ==

It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article. A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently. Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match).
The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course). Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am mostly happy with the current article. Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now ==
Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible. There is a branch of science called "evolutionary biology," but they do not deal with dinosaurs. If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

:"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]

:Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

:I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:: Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationary" ==

Conservative, that ''you've'' never heard the word "creationary" is not really the point, is it? That ''most'' haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that. It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read [http://www.geocities.com/hftamke/creation.html here] for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm down with that compromise.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I think we should not use the word "creationary" if it is not in more than one current very large dictionary. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Then I must have misspoken. Let's use them both.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping apparent joke==
:However, a certain "Dr. Karl Pilkington", has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as "1 million years BC", by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be "some cross over point" where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ One Million Years BC] is a 1966 science fiction movie, and [http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/onemillionbc3sh.jpg Raquel Welch] was the "curvy" actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has [http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page his own Wiki]. Sounds like someone was having fun. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== OK ==

Let's discuss this:
* For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur. A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.

Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur? Anyone?

* The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."

This contradicts the section title.

* Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25] Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, and in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting.

What does this have to do with anything. There are a lot of cultural references to animals which don't even exist! This makes no sense.

* Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Again, contradicts section title.

* Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.

Has anyone seen that?[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't understand your claim that two of those points "contradict the section title". The section title is "Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting", and each of those points provide support (not proof, but support) of humans and dinosaurs coexisting at some time (or are you reading the section title as saying that they coexist ''now''?).
:I doubt that there are ''lots'' of cultural references to animals which don't exist, but the point here is that cultural references to creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs supports the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting, especially when there are so many references from two continents.
:By the way, I smiled at your reference to "evil British punctunation".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is "the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/images/elephant_skull_0.jpg]?" You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not suggesting that the cyclops existed. I didn't deny that there are ''some'' cultural references to animals that didn't exist, and I'll go further and admit that perhaps the Greeks had quite a few. But by the same token, people too readily dismiss cultural references to things they haven't otherwise heard of rather than see if there might be a basis for them. The descriptions of dragons are many and widespread, and largely consistent with descriptions of dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, as I understand it, the dragons that appeared in the different cultures (including English culture) wheren't actually that similiar to dinosaurs. If anything, they were more serpent like. In some cases, they were extremely different. The 'looking kindda like dinosaurs' is just the modern interpretation of dragons. Ironically, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on them. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::What do you mean by "serpent like"? Long and slender? Legless? Dragons seem to have had a wide variety of descriptions (which is as you'd expect if they are dinosaurs, i.e. if they are referring to a group of creatures, not a particular type of creature; dinosaurs came in a wide variety of shapes), some serpent-like but others not. Note that most of the pictures in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Wikipedia dragon article] are not really serpent-like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== "[S]ome descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today..." ==

The reference in a creationist journal for this statement says, "The feasibility of the idea that some dinosaurs may still be alive has a little more support, although at this time we would have to say it is not conclusive." If the creationists are saying it's not conclusive, then why is it in the article? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. I've downgraded the claim to be more consistent with the reference. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== "For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.[15]" ==

The only sentence in ref 15 about explorers is, "And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons." Mammoths and stegodons are not dinosaurs. And the plural "explorers" implies more than one. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe you could quibble about the word "explorers" vs. "researchers" or similar, but look further down in that referenced article to the bit about Mokele-mbembe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know of many recent explorers. In most people's (and I mean most) "explorers" are the folks who went looking for "new worlds" 100s of years ago. I've done research, but never considered myself and explorer before. I shouldn't have to interpret references anyway :). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How about replacing the sentence with "People in the Congo have reported seeing a creature they termed "mokele-mbembe," meaning "one that stops the flow of rivers." French priests translate this as "monstrous animals." Dr. Roy Mackal made an expedition to the region and recorded the Congolese descriptions of the mokele-mbembe.<ref>http://www.mokelembembe.com/</ref> (and reference 15). That's much more clear than "explorers reported seeing...," which really isn't in ref 15 anyway. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's too much irrelevant information for the space, in my opinion. The important point for this article is not what it's called and what that means, but that the ''description'' matched that of a dinosaur. Your suggestion doesn't mention that. Second, I would be happy to change it to "People in the Congo..." if it were not for the facts that it wasn't just the Congo and that a biologist has reported seeing it as well as ordinary "people" (see reference 15).
::I'm still open to suggestions on alternative wording, however.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you seem to claim a monopoly to the wording, what better word than explorer would you recommend? And what other researchers have observed a dinosaur? The ONLY reference to explorers in the reference is the British explorer that saw a mammoth. The "expeditions" brought back "ordinary people"'s (your words) observations, but Dr. Mackal did not observe one. ''There's '''nothing''' in the reference about explorers and dinosaurs.'' [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:How am I claiming a monopoly on the wording if I'm inviting suggestions of better wording? I'll try to do some rewording of that entire section, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes ==

The first edit that I've reverted was deletion of the comment about recent sightings, with the edit comment, "''the author has since retracted claims - see reference''". This is incorrect. The author has retracted ''one'' recent sighting, but there are still others in that article, so the statement is still correct.

The second edit removed information without any explanation. I will reinstate the minor wording changes that were also in that edit.

The third edit removed information with the edit comment, "''article discredited by scientist it quotes http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491''". This is incorrect. First a couple of minor quibbles. The ''article'' was not discredited, so much as the ''claims'' of the article, and the the main scientist it quotes was not the one who disputed the claims, but her boss. More relevant, however, is that the claims were ''disputed''; to say that they were ''discredited'' is to put a POV on whether the disputing succeeded. Most relevant is that the claim in this (Dinosaur) article was ''not even disputed''. The claim in this article was, "''Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.''". Horner did not "discredit" ''that creationists see things this way'', and the reference cited in the edit comment did not retract the creationist claim.

The fourth edit was grammatically incorrect, but I will reword it to make it a bit closer to the edit.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html ==

This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that it doesn't cite sources. Hang fire until I've reworded that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes (2) ==

The first edit I reverted this time had the edit comment, "''China Today is noted for "Inquirer"-like sensational stories that cannot be confirmed.''". Show me some evidence of this and I'll agree to the re-removal of that bit.

The second edit had the edit comment, "''Author of the reference claims to be the Paleontologist for the United States "Rational" Museum, which apparently does not exist.''". No, it said the "'''N'''ational" Museum, which is an [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0919950.html alternative or former name] of the Smithsonian Institute, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Gilmore Wikipedia] and other sources confirm that Gilmore was a paleontologist there.

The third edit had the edit comment, "''Information about dragons belongs in an article on dragons.''". Sorry, but the point is that creationists see dragons as being dinosaurs. Thus it belongs here.

The fourth edit had the edit comment, "''Reference indicates that author retracted his claims about dinosaurs.''". Please don't go repeating the same changes without giving new (and valid) reasons for doing so. The same editor made this same deletion with the same basic edit comment before, which I answered above when I reverted it.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== If this is a joke, it's not that funny. ==

In my short time at Conservapedia, I've seen two 1337-speaking vandals attack (striking, among other things, my newly-made talk page!), and I've had the misfortune of seeing this article. Between the two - the vandalism and this article - I'm not sure which one is worse. I mean, I'm as conservative as the next guy (that's why I joined the site), but I'm also... errr... "college educated." There's a line between "conservative" and "creationist" that I don't think you guys really get, and it bothers me to have you creating this site in the name of all conservatives, who include me...

Let's start briefly with the content. The Loch Ness Monster is proof of the continued existence of dinosaurs? Seriously? And treating science as a "point of view" that needs to be "balanced" is obscene. Anyone who's taken science classes in any school knows that science doesn't concern itself with having a point of view, and if you believe to the contrary, honestly, you could probably find a better conspiracy theory to believe in. It strikes me that what you're working for in this article is the taking of "political correctness" to its logical extreme, that even bad science is an "opinion" that deserves "equal time." As a conservative, the idea of political correctness bothers me enough, and it should bother you, too, but I see that where being PC serves you, you're more than happy to indulge. I'd rather not dignify the rest of this article with a response.

The real weakness, though, is sourcing. Encyclopedias imply objective, factual writing. That means good academic sourcing. But, the creationist claims here are sourced to outlandishly biased one-trick-pony sites I've never even heard of before, but they all seem to have their own agenda. A basic underpinning of academic writing, as I have learned, is objective & honest use of citations. But the way you cite in this article is no better than having an article on Hillary Clinton that said, <nowiki>"Hillary would be a good president <ref>See her campaign website</ref>."</nowiki> You see the comparison? You can't support a biased statement with a biased citation just to give an illusion of objectivity: it's just my hunch, but I suspect that "AnswersInGenesis" and "CreationOnTheWeb" have a not-so-hidden agenda.

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke. What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''. The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective. Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]]. There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative. Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too). But I've also taken science classes. Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious? And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:I believe that it's you that's assuming your conclusion. You've not even bothered to explain why the sources are supposedly "biased niche-sources" and opposing sources are not, and why the sources are not "serious". Making those assertions without something to back it up is not a valid argument. And you are sort of wrong with the "biased niche-sources" anyway. The creationist sources referenced frequently cite from non-creationist sources. So what that you've taken science classes? So have the scientists who are creationists! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The scientific community has a system & a vetting process for dealing with theories, that produces thoroughly reviewed & respected articles. Can you point to any of those for your creation "science"? Can you point to an accredited university that teaches it? And don't get out of that by calling all universities "liberal": while I agree that the social science depts at most universities are fairly liberal, the science depts are not. Really, I didn't think it was necessary to prove that AnswersInGenesis is a biased niche source. Look at it, and page through the articles - it's clearly a one-issue action group, which isn't that objectively persuasive.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's at least two peer-reviewed creationist science journals that I know of. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the universities in the U.S. to answer that question. And even some evolutionists admit that evolution is a religion, and many universities are religiously liberal at the very least. I'm not denying that AiG has a bias; I'm claiming that evolutionists have a bias also. I can't help it if you're not persuaded by their science, including the science that they quote from evolutionists which I previously mentioned and you seem to have ignored. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys ''come'' from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"''That one's new to me, too!''". Hmmm, it seems that there is a lot that you don't know. Perhaps you should read up on the creation/evolution debate a bit more (and not just from the evolutionary side).
:Michael Ruse is an anti-creationist who denied that evolution was a religion, then later admitted that it is treated that way. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/ here].
:I'm also a Christian, and I'm also a rational one (well, I believe that I am, just like you believe that you are). There ''is'' a concerted effort to push evolution. Whenever anyone suggests even that students ought to consider alternatives, the evolutionists come out with guns blazing (figuratively speaking) to prevent evolution even being questioned. The reason (not that they admit it)? Because at root this is a ''spiritual'' issue. Despite you (and many others) being Christians who believe in evolution, the atheists know that the Bible and evolution are contradictory, and belief in evolution has destroyed many a Christian's faith. Demonstrating that evolution may not in fact be true is therefore undermining one of the atheists' most important weapons.
:Science has no agenda at all; it is not an intelligent being. But the ''scientists'', on the other hand, do often have agendas.
:"''Evolution simply explains life better...''". That is your ''opinion'', but given your gross ignorance of the alternative view, I wouldn't put much weight on it.
:"''...and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you)''". You've broken nothing to me; I've heard that before. And it's simply untrue. [[Physical science|Science]] was founded on a Biblical (i.e. creationist) worldview and many if not most of the early scientists were creationists. So evolution, which came later, does ''not'' underlie all of modern science. Additionally, some evolutionists have even admitted this. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/347 here], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/86/ here], and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5075 here].
:"''I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind.''". Huh? What makes you think that the editors of those journals haven't already made up their mind?
:"''Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question.''". Why is that?
:"''I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath.''". Who's tossing out geology? The dating methods can be tossed out because they don't stand up to scrutiny, partly because they are, in part, built on assumptions that rule out creation to start with. So using them to argue against creation is circular reasoning. And you just called thousands of scientists and other people "insane and delusional". That's a lovely way to make an argument.
:"''Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.''. I wonder if the supporters of geocentricism with all it's adjustments to accommodate the observations said the same of heliocentricism? I don't consider creation implausible at all, and I don't consider it as complicated as the hurdles that evolutionists jumps over to maintain their faith.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Philip, you truly astound me. You manage to sound so reasonable spouting the most ridiculous stuff. I am amazed that someone who seems genuinely intelligent and well spoken can truly dismiss science so readily and try to make the scientific community out to be te crackpots. One thing that truly bothers me in your arguments though is when you continue to claim that dating methods are flawed because they proceed from the assumption that creation did not exist... but this is ridiculous. You are referring to the Flood which supposedly altered the carbon ratio of the planet. Science does not assume this didn't happen. Science does not have to assume it didn't happen. The absence of an event is the default assumption. Without credible scientific evidence of a global flood that altered the carbon ratio. there is no reason to include it in the calculation. Claiming the dating methods don't stand up to scrutiny because your assumption of creationism requires it is disingenuous at best. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 09:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps I sound reasonable because what I'm "spouting" is not ridiculous?
:I am ''not'' dismissing science. I'm criticising the views of some (many) ''scientists''. Similarly, I'm not making the scientific community out to be crackpots; I'm pointing out that they have their own biases, their own worldviews/religions, and that these views often drive their views of origins. Yes, the same applies to me, but at least I admit it. They don't (most of the time; they do at times).
:I'm not referring ''only'' to altered carbon ratios of the flood, but yes, that is one of the things I'm referring to.
:You contradicted yourself regarding the assumptions. You first claimed that science ''doesn't'' assume this, then say that they ''do''; as the default assumption.
:What evidence for a global flood would you consider credible? It seems that you have already rejected as evidence that the vast majority of the rock on the planet is sedimentary, just as you would expect from a global flood. And that there are billions of dead things (fossils) in those sediments, just as you'd expect from a global flood. etc. etc.
:Even if it is fair to claim that assuming no flood is a fair assumption, it is still ''not'' fair to then claim that the dating methods contradict a global flood; it is still circular reasoning.
:I'm not rejecting the dating methods solely because they contradict the written historical record, but also because they have proved themselves unreliable. There are ''many'' documented cases of rocks of known age (the eruptions were witnessed) being dated incorrectly, of different methods giving inconsistent dates, and similar problems.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's a concept in math and science called "order of magnitude." That is, is an error in 10s of years, 100s of years, 1000s of years, 10000s of years, etc. A geologic timescale of 6000-ish years imply that gross errors in rock dating would be in 100s of years and within a few percent would be 10s of years. Sure, there are errors--science is always up for revising its measurements and making it more precise--but the order of magnitude of 10000 on a geologic timescale of millions of years is so incredibly small to be laughable. Even 1000000 years among 65 million years is about 2%. And for someone to dismiss all of geological dating because "there are errors" is intellectually dishonest (in my opinion, of course). And I've always found it interesting that some "views" of science are OK whereas others are "questionable." If people don't like science and technology, then they should get rid of their car, their manufactured clothes, the food that comes to the grocery store, their car and all medical care. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== thanks! ==

Phil, thanks for clarifying the Mokele-member part of the story. (I'm not a big fan on bulleted lists--it makes it look like the writer is just trying to occupy more space--but that's your stylistic choice.)

The only other true objection (well, at least that I will bring up) is that the "exctinct species that were found" argument. An analogous argument is that apples provide evidence for oranges. That is, there's nothing about pine trees, squirrels or fish that provide any evidence for dinosaurs, because they are not related. Certainly you would not say that birds do not provide evidence for dinosaurs (!), so why would squirrels or fish or pine trees?

Other than that, I think you have portrayed the creationist perspective as well as it will ever be done. Cheerio! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'm not crazy about the bulleted list here either, but it seemed the best choice in the circumstances. I could have made each first-level bullet a sub-sub-heading perhaps, but there barely seemed enough content in each one for that, and I felt that making the arrangement clear was important. I might think more about that.
:The extinct species bit is simply to counter the objection that some do make that the mere fact that dinosaurs were last in the fossil record 65 million years ago (on the evolutionary timescale) indicates that they died out that long ago. The examples show that this is not a valid argument. Can I make that clearer somehow?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Back to the Future

2007-05-04T00:44:18Z

Sterile: he was a scientist-type doctor

A popular movie from 1985 in which the main character Marty McFly ([[Michael J. Fox]]) goes back in [[time]] to 1955 with the help of his scientist friend, Doctor Emmet Brown and a Delorean time machine. It led to two sequels and an animated television series.

Carbon dioxide

2007-05-04T00:42:59Z

Sterile:

'''Carbon dioxide''' in an odorless, colorless [[gas]] formed by the [[combustion]] of [[hydrocarbon]]s, both naturally, in the human body, and artificially, as fuel. It is one of the human body's major waste products, being excreted through exhalation.
It is used by plants in the process of [[photosynthesis]] to generate [[oxygen]].

[[Image:CO2phase.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Phase diagram]] for CO2]]
At room temperature and atmospheric [[pressure]], it is a gas. It becomes solid at -78 ºC at standard atmospheric pressure, forming dry ice. When it thaws, it turns directly into a gas again (see [[sublimation]]). <ref>"Dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide. A block of dry ice has a surface temperature of -109.3 degrees Fahrenheit (-78.5 degrees C). Dry ice also has the very nice feature of sublimation -- as it breaks down, it turns directly into carbon dioxide gas rather than a liquid." [http://www.howstuffworks.com/question264.htm How Stuff Works] </ref>

Each molecule of carbon dioxide has one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, so its chemical formula is CO2.

CO2 is one of the so-called [[greenhouse gas]]es. Heat-trapping by CO2 has been observed on [[Earth]] and [[Venus]]. The extent of its role in the current increase in average global temperatures is a topic of active political, though not scientific, debate.

The Lewis structure indicates it has two double bonds:

[[Image:CO2.gif]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category: Chemistry]]

File:CO2.gif

2007-05-04T00:42:23Z

Sterile: carbon dioxide

carbon dioxide

Back to the Future

2007-05-04T00:39:30Z

Sterile: New page: A popular movie from 1985 in which the main character Marty McFly (Micahel J. Fox) goes back in time to 1955 with the help of "Doc" Brown and a Delorean time machine. It lead to two s...

A popular movie from 1985 in which the main character Marty McFly (Micahel J. Fox) goes back in [[time]] to 1955 with the help of "Doc" Brown and a Delorean time machine. It lead to two sequels.

The Return of the King

2007-05-04T00:33:01Z

Sterile: /* Book Five */ 2 fives?

'''The Return of the King''' is a novel by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]] and the third and last in his [[Lord of the Rings]] trilogy. It is divided into two parts called Books Five and Six (Books One through Four are in the two previous volumes.)

==Book Five==
{{Spoiler}}
This book chronicles the adventures of the rest of the Fellowship. It includes the final battles against Mordor such as the Battle of the Pelannor fields. It approaches three perspectives. Gandalf and Pipin in Gondor, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli through the paths of the dead, and the Rohan armies with Merry and their ride to Gondor's aide.

==Book Six==
{{Spoiler}}
This book chronicles the final journey to Mount Doom by Frodo and Sam and the homeward journey. It involves the confrontation of Gollum with the ring in the mountain of Doom. The book involves the reunion of the fellowship. It also ends with the battle of Bywater, death of Saruman the white and departure of Frodo to the undying lands. <ref> [[The Return of the King]], by J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955. </ref>

==See also==
*[[The Lord of the Rings]]
*[[The Fellowship of the Ring]]
*[[The Two Towers]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:book]]
[[category:Middle-Earth]]

Acid rain

2007-05-04T00:24:09Z

Sterile: New page: Acid rain is rain that is more acidic than in its natural state, and is usually consider to be a pH of less than 5. (Natural rain water is slightly acidic due to the presence of dissolved...

Acid rain is rain that is more acidic than in its natural state, and is usually consider to be a pH of less than 5. (Natural rain water is slightly acidic due to the presence of dissolved [[carbon dioxide]]. Acid rain forms when [[sulfur dioxide]] dissolves in [[water]] to make [[sulfurous acid]]. The [[sulfur dioxide]] can also be oxidized to [[sulfur trioxide]] and form [[sulfuric acid]] upon reaction with [[water]]

Acid rain can cause damage to structures and statues, and also plant life. (For example the [[Black forest]] of [[Germany]] has been heavily damaged by acid rain.)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-04T00:16:00Z

Sterile: /* The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left */

== Abomination! ==

Could Conservapedia provide an article even more so minimizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Maybe if we work real hard at it, we can acknowledge him, along with all the other men named Jesus, as mere spokesmen? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-05-04T00:10:26Z

Sterile: /* thanks! */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

== Alternative version of the article ==

It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article. A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently. Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match).
The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course). Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am mostly happy with the current article. Given the ed staff, it's the best it'll ever get.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now ==
Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible. There is a branch of science called "evolutionary biology," but they do not deal with dinosaurs. If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

:"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Answers_in_Genesis]

:Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

:I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:: Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationary" ==

Conservative, that ''you've'' never heard the word "creationary" is not really the point, is it? That ''most'' haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that. It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read [http://www.geocities.com/hftamke/creation.html here] for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm down with that compromise.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I think we should not use the word "creationary" if it is not in more than one current very large dictionary. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::The terms may be uncommon, but I fail to see how they are, or make the topic sound, ridiculous. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Then I must have misspoken. Let's use them both.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping apparent joke==
:However, a certain "Dr. Karl Pilkington", has used numerous reliable paleontological sources, such as "1 million years BC", by the eminent social philosopher Racquel Welch, to deduce that since dinosaurs and humans have once lived, there must be "some cross over point" where both roamed the Earth. This standpoint has gained a large amount of publicity, and is now taken more seriously than accepted extinction theory.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ One Million Years BC] is a 1966 science fiction movie, and [http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/onemillionbc3sh.jpg Raquel Welch] was the "curvy" actress who starred in it. Karl Pilkington produces a radio show and has [http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page his own Wiki]. Sounds like someone was having fun. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== OK ==

Let's discuss this:
* For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur. A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.

Has anyone in the last 100 years report seeing a dinosaur? Anyone?

* The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."

This contradicts the section title.

* Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[25] World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."[25] Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, and in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting.

What does this have to do with anything. There are a lot of cultural references to animals which don't even exist! This makes no sense.

* Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Again, contradicts section title.

* Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.

Has anyone seen that?[[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't understand your claim that two of those points "contradict the section title". The section title is "Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting", and each of those points provide support (not proof, but support) of humans and dinosaurs coexisting at some time (or are you reading the section title as saying that they coexist ''now''?).
:I doubt that there are ''lots'' of cultural references to animals which don't exist, but the point here is that cultural references to creatures with descriptions matching dinosaurs supports the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting, especially when there are so many references from two continents.
:By the way, I smiled at your reference to "evil British punctunation".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You are suggesting that the cyclops existed? When a potentially simpler answer is "the ancient Greeks saw an elephant skull[http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/images/elephant_skull_0.jpg]?" You can have cultural references to something without it existing (dragons, unicorns, boogie man, fairies, etc...) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not suggesting that the cyclops existed. I didn't deny that there are ''some'' cultural references to animals that didn't exist, and I'll go further and admit that perhaps the Greeks had quite a few. But by the same token, people too readily dismiss cultural references to things they haven't otherwise heard of rather than see if there might be a basis for them. The descriptions of dragons are many and widespread, and largely consistent with descriptions of dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, as I understand it, the dragons that appeared in the different cultures (including English culture) wheren't actually that similiar to dinosaurs. If anything, they were more serpent like. In some cases, they were extremely different. The 'looking kindda like dinosaurs' is just the modern interpretation of dragons. Ironically, Wikipedia actually has a pretty good page on them. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 10:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::What do you mean by "serpent like"? Long and slender? Legless? Dragons seem to have had a wide variety of descriptions (which is as you'd expect if they are dinosaurs, i.e. if they are referring to a group of creatures, not a particular type of creature; dinosaurs came in a wide variety of shapes), some serpent-like but others not. Note that most of the pictures in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Wikipedia dragon article] are not really serpent-like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== "[S]ome descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today..." ==

The reference in a creationist journal for this statement says, "The feasibility of the idea that some dinosaurs may still be alive has a little more support, although at this time we would have to say it is not conclusive." If the creationists are saying it's not conclusive, then why is it in the article? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. I've downgraded the claim to be more consistent with the reference. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== "For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.[15]" ==

The only sentence in ref 15 about explorers is, "And British explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell returned from an isolated Nepalese valley in March with photos of living creatures which looked something like mammoths or extinct stegodons." Mammoths and stegodons are not dinosaurs. And the plural "explorers" implies more than one. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe you could quibble about the word "explorers" vs. "researchers" or similar, but look further down in that referenced article to the bit about Mokele-mbembe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know of many recent explorers. In most people's (and I mean most) "explorers" are the folks who went looking for "new worlds" 100s of years ago. I've done research, but never considered myself and explorer before. I shouldn't have to interpret references anyway :). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

How about replacing the sentence with "People in the Congo have reported seeing a creature they termed "mokele-mbembe," meaning "one that stops the flow of rivers." French priests translate this as "monstrous animals." Dr. Roy Mackal made an expedition to the region and recorded the Congolese descriptions of the mokele-mbembe.<ref>http://www.mokelembembe.com/</ref> (and reference 15). That's much more clear than "explorers reported seeing...," which really isn't in ref 15 anyway. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's too much irrelevant information for the space, in my opinion. The important point for this article is not what it's called and what that means, but that the ''description'' matched that of a dinosaur. Your suggestion doesn't mention that. Second, I would be happy to change it to "People in the Congo..." if it were not for the facts that it wasn't just the Congo and that a biologist has reported seeing it as well as ordinary "people" (see reference 15).
::I'm still open to suggestions on alternative wording, however.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you seem to claim a monopoly to the wording, what better word than explorer would you recommend? And what other researchers have observed a dinosaur? The ONLY reference to explorers in the reference is the British explorer that saw a mammoth. The "expeditions" brought back "ordinary people"'s (your words) observations, but Dr. Mackal did not observe one. ''There's '''nothing''' in the reference about explorers and dinosaurs.'' [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 13:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:How am I claiming a monopoly on the wording if I'm inviting suggestions of better wording? I'll try to do some rewording of that entire section, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes ==

The first edit that I've reverted was deletion of the comment about recent sightings, with the edit comment, "''the author has since retracted claims - see reference''". This is incorrect. The author has retracted ''one'' recent sighting, but there are still others in that article, so the statement is still correct.

The second edit removed information without any explanation. I will reinstate the minor wording changes that were also in that edit.

The third edit removed information with the edit comment, "''article discredited by scientist it quotes http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491''". This is incorrect. First a couple of minor quibbles. The ''article'' was not discredited, so much as the ''claims'' of the article, and the the main scientist it quotes was not the one who disputed the claims, but her boss. More relevant, however, is that the claims were ''disputed''; to say that they were ''discredited'' is to put a POV on whether the disputing succeeded. Most relevant is that the claim in this (Dinosaur) article was ''not even disputed''. The claim in this article was, "''Creation scientists also see the recent dinosaur tissue find as a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.''". Horner did not "discredit" ''that creationists see things this way'', and the reference cited in the edit comment did not retract the creationist claim.

The fourth edit was grammatically incorrect, but I will reword it to make it a bit closer to the edit.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html ==

This page makes a number of claims regarding evolutionary biology that I cannot verify from any other source, and they do not cite their sources. In addition they make the claim "It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically". However, there is no possible way to tell whether or not the species have remained genetically stable. The only conclusion is that the site in unreliable. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that it doesn't cite sources. Hang fire until I've reworded that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My reversion of recent changes (2) ==

The first edit I reverted this time had the edit comment, "''China Today is noted for "Inquirer"-like sensational stories that cannot be confirmed.''". Show me some evidence of this and I'll agree to the re-removal of that bit.

The second edit had the edit comment, "''Author of the reference claims to be the Paleontologist for the United States "Rational" Museum, which apparently does not exist.''". No, it said the "'''N'''ational" Museum, which is an [http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0919950.html alternative or former name] of the Smithsonian Institute, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Gilmore Wikipedia] and other sources confirm that Gilmore was a paleontologist there.

The third edit had the edit comment, "''Information about dragons belongs in an article on dragons.''". Sorry, but the point is that creationists see dragons as being dinosaurs. Thus it belongs here.

The fourth edit had the edit comment, "''Reference indicates that author retracted his claims about dinosaurs.''". Please don't go repeating the same changes without giving new (and valid) reasons for doing so. The same editor made this same deletion with the same basic edit comment before, which I answered above when I reverted it.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== If this is a joke, it's not that funny. ==

In my short time at Conservapedia, I've seen two 1337-speaking vandals attack (striking, among other things, my newly-made talk page!), and I've had the misfortune of seeing this article. Between the two - the vandalism and this article - I'm not sure which one is worse. I mean, I'm as conservative as the next guy (that's why I joined the site), but I'm also... errr... "college educated." There's a line between "conservative" and "creationist" that I don't think you guys really get, and it bothers me to have you creating this site in the name of all conservatives, who include me...

Let's start briefly with the content. The Loch Ness Monster is proof of the continued existence of dinosaurs? Seriously? And treating science as a "point of view" that needs to be "balanced" is obscene. Anyone who's taken science classes in any school knows that science doesn't concern itself with having a point of view, and if you believe to the contrary, honestly, you could probably find a better conspiracy theory to believe in. It strikes me that what you're working for in this article is the taking of "political correctness" to its logical extreme, that even bad science is an "opinion" that deserves "equal time." As a conservative, the idea of political correctness bothers me enough, and it should bother you, too, but I see that where being PC serves you, you're more than happy to indulge. I'd rather not dignify the rest of this article with a response.

The real weakness, though, is sourcing. Encyclopedias imply objective, factual writing. That means good academic sourcing. But, the creationist claims here are sourced to outlandishly biased one-trick-pony sites I've never even heard of before, but they all seem to have their own agenda. A basic underpinning of academic writing, as I have learned, is objective & honest use of citations. But the way you cite in this article is no better than having an article on Hillary Clinton that said, <nowiki>"Hillary would be a good president <ref>See her campaign website</ref>."</nowiki> You see the comparison? You can't support a biased statement with a biased citation just to give an illusion of objectivity: it's just my hunch, but I suspect that "AnswersInGenesis" and "CreationOnTheWeb" have a not-so-hidden agenda.

I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's not a joke. What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''. The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective. Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]]. There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative. Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and an "Evolutionist" (that term's new to me too). But I've also taken science classes. Don't you think it says something that the only sources you can point to are biased niche-sources, and not anything actually serious? And the last time I checked, assuming your conclusion is bad science :-P -[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:I believe that it's you that's assuming your conclusion. You've not even bothered to explain why the sources are supposedly "biased niche-sources" and opposing sources are not, and why the sources are not "serious". Making those assertions without something to back it up is not a valid argument. And you are sort of wrong with the "biased niche-sources" anyway. The creationist sources referenced frequently cite from non-creationist sources. So what that you've taken science classes? So have the scientists who are creationists! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The scientific community has a system & a vetting process for dealing with theories, that produces thoroughly reviewed & respected articles. Can you point to any of those for your creation "science"? Can you point to an accredited university that teaches it? And don't get out of that by calling all universities "liberal": while I agree that the social science depts at most universities are fairly liberal, the science depts are not. Really, I didn't think it was necessary to prove that AnswersInGenesis is a biased niche source. Look at it, and page through the articles - it's clearly a one-issue action group, which isn't that objectively persuasive.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's at least two peer-reviewed creationist science journals that I know of. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the universities in the U.S. to answer that question. And even some evolutionists admit that evolution is a religion, and many universities are religiously liberal at the very least. I'm not denying that AiG has a bias; I'm claiming that evolutionists have a bias also. I can't help it if you're not persuaded by their science, including the science that they quote from evolutionists which I previously mentioned and you seem to have ignored. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a religion!? That one's new to me, too! Where do you guys ''come'' from? Sounds like a strawman argument: you attribute it to me, and then knock it down for fun, but I never claimed it: as I said before, I'm a Christian, but a rational one. You make it sound like there's a concerted effort to push evolution. I can't imagine the reason that would be behind it. Science & truth are their own ends: science has no other agenda. Evolution simply explains life better, and underlies all of modern science (hate to be the first to break it to you). And, hate to tell you as well, but a peer reviewed creation science journal doesn't jump the hurdle I asked for. I asked about acceptance of creation "science" among peer reviewed science journals as one of a few indicia of whether or not a theory has the power to convince someone that hasn't already made up his mind. Creating a new journal to act as your own vetting process essentially just begs the question. I mean, it's insane & delusional to say that dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6,000 years ago: you can't toss out modern dating methods & geology in one breath. And so help me God, if you say "don't worry, the flood explains it all," I swear, I'm out. Coming up with an implausible, complicated story to explain away a comparatively simpler scientific theory boggles the mind, not to mention the other problems.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 12:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== thanks! ==

Phil, thanks for clarifying the Mokele-member part of the story. (I'm not a big fan on bulleted lists--it makes it look like the writer is just trying to occupy more space--but that's your stylistic choice.)

The only other true objection (well, at least that I will bring up) is that the "exctinct species that were found" argument. An analogous argument is that apples provide evidence for oranges. That is, there's nothing about pine trees, squirrels or fish that provide any evidence for dinosaurs, because they are not related. Certainly you would not say that birds do not provide evidence for dinosaurs (!), so why would squirrels or fish or pine trees?

Other than that, I think you have portrayed the creationist perspective as well as it will ever be done. Cheerio! [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'm not crazy about the bulleted list here either, but it seemed the best choice in the circumstances. I could have made each first-level bullet a sub-sub-heading perhaps, but there barely seemed enough content in each one for that, and I felt that making the arrangement clear was important. I might think more about that.
:The extinct species bit is simply to counter the objection that some do make that the mere fact that dinosaurs were last in the fossil record 65 million years ago (on the evolutionary timescale) indicates that they died out that long ago. The examples show that this is not a valid argument. Can I make that clearer somehow?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, uh, well, I don't know how that follows from that evidence. I just don't like the one sentence about the extinct species, because it is there is no valid conclusion by logic (like syllogism, if you know what that is) to conclude anything about dinosaurs from the other "previously thought of as extinct" species. There's no connect between alive or dead squirrels and dinosaurs. The empirical evidence (by sightings) is as good as the observers credibility, but there is no logical conclusion to be made about dinosaurs from the info. I don't know how to "discount" the fossil record from the data given. (Sorry!) I would still rather rid of the extinct species sentence. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-05-03T15:48:55Z

Sterile: /* thanks! */ whoops!

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-05-03T15:48:30Z

Sterile: thanks!

Phencyclidine

2007-05-02T23:37:12Z

Sterile:

'''Phencyclidine''', or PCP, is classified as a disassociative anesthetic. When illegally sold for recreational use it is known on the streets as "[[angel dust]]." Phencyclidine was first synthesized in 1926.
[[Image:Phenylcycl.gif]]

File:Phenylcycl.gif

2007-05-02T23:34:58Z

Sterile: image for pcp

image for pcp

Debate:Is Rap music torture?

2007-05-02T20:51:59Z

Sterile:

According to ''ABC News'', suspected terrorists undergoing [[coercive interrogation]] have been " forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's 'Slim Shady' album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic" [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] Is this dehumanizing treatment banned by the Geneva Convention, and if not, should it be?

:I suspect the detail about the kind of music was mentioned to make the treatment sound more ludicrous and less cruel. If you can encourage people to joke about whether rap music is torture, you're deflecting attention from the general character of the treatment itself.

:I suspect that the significance of the music's being "foreign" is that the patterns to it are unfamiliar, and it would be preceived as unpredictable noise rather than as music.

:What volume level was it played at? Was the real point to induce sleep deprivation?

:If you played "music" to me at 110 db, continuously, it wouldn't really matter whether it was rap, Balinese Gamelan music, or Khachaturian's ''Sabre Dance,'' it would deprive me of sleep.

:But if you say "they were subjected to intense noise" it sounds like it could be torture, whereas if you say "they were subjected to rap music," it sounds like a joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::What [[User:Dpbsmith|he]] said. I was too lazy to type it myself. As far as "torture" or banning under the GC (as if ''we'd'' pay attention to such "outdated concepts"), once you reach a certain volume level, which is easy to do in small cinder block rooms, it's not only not "music", it's simply a physical assault - it causes permanent damage, for instance. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well at what point it causes permanent brain damage is debatable... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Who said anything about ''brain'' damage? The effect of prolonged exposure to high sound pressure levels (for varying times and SPLs) is well documented - ''on the ears''.

:::::Point taken. I amend my statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

People can be very creative when it comes to finding new ways to harm others. - Suricou

During the invasion of Panama, when Noriega was hiding in the Vatican embasy the US blasted rap until he came out. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is, why do people listen to it? {{unsigned|JessicaS}}

:Songs by [[Barney the Dinosaur]] were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at [[Guantanamo Bay]], if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

West Coast rap or East Coast rap? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]]