Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Methodological naturalism

2007-06-27T04:20:26Z

Stones:

'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy <ref>Roger Pennock declared that "science is not based upon a dogmatic ontological or metaphysical naturalism, but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, methodological manner." [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] </ref>
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. This kind of approach is the result of application of the epistemology of either of the empirical philosophies of [[pragmatism]] or [[logical positivism]], and (because it is a methodology developed without first establishing the ontological principles of the world) is unfounded. This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the Intelligent Design Programme instead. Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently atheistic, since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner. Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicity of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is disingenuous.

According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm</ref>
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. <ref>"The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame </ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm Methodological Naturalism? Part 2] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
*[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]] - From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315 The Rules of the Game] by [[Carl Wieland]]

==Notes==

<references/>
[[category:philosophy]]

Methodological naturalism

2007-06-27T04:07:30Z

Stones:

'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy <ref>Roger Pennock declared that "science is not based upon a dogmatic ontological or metaphysical naturalism, but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, methodological manner." [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] </ref>
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. This kind of approach is the result of application of the epistemology of either of the empirical philosophies of [[pragmatism]] or [[logical positivism]], and (because it is a methodology developed without first establishing the ontological principles of the world) is unfounded. This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the Intelligent Design Programme instead.

According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], "The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity)." <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm</ref>
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. <ref>"The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame </ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm Methodological Naturalism? Part 2] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
*[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]] - From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315 The Rules of the Game] by [[Carl Wieland]]

==Notes==

<references/>
[[category:philosophy]]

Leon Trotsky

2007-06-23T20:45:43Z

Stones: Trotsky's Contempt for Archaeology

[[Image:Trockiy2.jpg|right|thumb|Leon Trotsky]]

'''Leon Trotsky''', born '''Leon Davidovich Bronstein''' (1879-1940) was a participant with [[V. I. Lenin]] in the [[communist revolution]] in [[Russia]] in 1917. However, he had previously been a member of the [[Mensheviks]], a communist party that had once been aligned with the [[Bolsheviks]]. They did not believe in actively pursuing revolution, that it would happen when the people were ready, unlike the Bolsheviks who believed that the people needed to be led. From 1904 until 1917 Trotsky had a stormy relationship with Lenin, with him accusing Lenin of wanting to become a dictator. But the two of them resolved their differences in 1917, and after that point arguably Trotsky was totally loyal to Lenin.

Trotsky was the most powerful orator in the Bolshevik party, and due to his numerous spells in jail and his active role in the failed 1905 revolution he was much more famous than Lenin was to ordinary Russians. He was the actual organizer behind the [[October Revolution]], as Lenin was still in exile and so unable to participate.

Trotsky also helped build the [[Red Army]] that defeated the White Russian Army in the subsequent Civil War in Russia, despite having no military experience of any kind.

Trotsky was unpopular within the Bolshevik party due to his intellectual snobbery and small details; he dressed very well, he had only joined the party in 1917, previously he had made insulting remarks to Lenin between 1904 and 1917.

When Lenin died in 1924, a lengthy power struggle began between Trotsky and [[Stalin]]. Trotsky took the view that socialism in the Soviet Union must await a revolution in western Europe and even worldwide. Stalin wanted power immediately and offered a rival ideology, ''Socialism in one country''. To fend off accusations of becoming the new 'Napoleon', he gave up his command of the Red Army. However Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Bolshevik party in 1927 and exiled him from Russia in 1929.

Trotsky eventually settled in [[Mexico]] in 1937, where he gave up politics and writing in favor of a career as a gardener. He was hunted down and murdered by an assassin sent by Stalin in 1940.

Trotsky's famous command was this: "Those who do not obey, do not eat."

==Trotsky's Atheism==
Like most [[Marxism|Marxists]], Trotsky was an avowed [[atheism|atheist]]. During [[World War I]], a Russian pilot was flying through dense clouds above Ararat when he spotted what appeared to be the remains of a very large wooden structure. When he returned to base, he informed [[Czar Nicholas]] of his find, and Czar Nicholas ordered a scientific investigation which immediately resulted in promising archaeological evidence that [[Ark|Noah's Ark]] did indeed lie ruined on the sides of the mountain. Unfortunately, the Czar was soon disposed of by the Bolsheviks, and all of the evidence gathered by the expedition was given to Trotsky who either hid or disposed of it, knowing that the find would undermine the [[Dialectic Materialism]] from which [[Communism]] derived its social theories.<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0272/0272_01.asp</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]]
*[[Communist Party]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Political people|Trotsky, Leon]]

Sally Ride

2007-06-23T17:34:54Z

Stones: PSA

[[Image:Sally_Ride.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. Sally Ride]]
'''Dr. Sally Kristen Ride''' (May 26, 1951, [[Los Angeles]]) was the first [[United States|American]] woman in [[space]]. She has a doctorate in [[Physics]] (Stanford, 1978), as well as a BSc in Physics, BA in English in 1973, and a MSc in Physics.

==NASA biography==

===Astronaut===

Ride was selected as an [[astronaut]] candidate by [[NASA]] in January 1978. In August 1979, she completed a one year training and evaluation period, making her eligible for assignment as a mission specialist on future [[Space Shuttle]] flight crews. She subsequently performed as an on-orbit capsule communicator (CAPCOM) on the STS-2 and STS-3 missions.[[Image:STS2 patch.jpg|right|thumb|200px|STS-7 Mission patch]]
Dr. Ride was a mission specialist on STS-7, which launched from [[Kennedy Space Center]], [[Florida]], on June 18, 1983. She was accompanied by Captain Robert L. Crippen (spacecraft commander), Captain Frederick H. Hauck (pilot), and fellow mission specialists Colonel John M. Fabian and Dr. Norman E. Thagard. This was the second flight for the Orbiter Challenger and the first mission with a 5-person crew. During the mission, the STS-7 crew deployed satellites for [[Canada]] (ANIK C-2) and [[Indonesia]] (PALAPA B-1); operated the Canadian-built Remote Manipulator System (RMS) to perform the first deployment and retrieval exercise with the Shuttle Pallet Satellite (SPAS-01); conducted the first formation flying of the orbiter with a free-flying satellite (SPAS-01); carried and operated the first U.S./[[Germany|German]] cooperative materials science payload (OSTA-2); and operated the Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System (CFES) and the Monodisperse Latex Reactor (MLR) experiments, in addition to activating seven Getaway Specials. Mission duration was 147 hours before landing on a lakebed runway at Edwards Air Force Base, [[California]], on June 24, 1983.[[Image:STS3 patch.png|right|thumb|200px|STS 41-G Mission patch]]
Dr. Ride served as a mission specialist on STS 41-G, which launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on October 5, 1984. This was the largest crew to fly to date and included Captain Robert L. Crippen (spacecraft commander), Captain Jon A. McBride (pilot), fellow mission specialists, Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan and Commander David C. Leestma, as well as two payloads specialists, Commander Marc Garneau and Mr. Paul Scully-Power. Their 8-day mission deployed the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite, conducted scientific observations of the earth with the OSTS-3 pallet and Large Format Camera, as well as demonstrating potential satellite refueling with an EVA and associated hydrazine transfer. Mission duration was 197 hours and concluded with a landing at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on October 13, 1984.

In June 1985 Dr. Ride was assigned to the crew of STS 61-M. Mission training was terminated in January 1986 following the [[Space Shuttle Challenger]] accident. Dr. Ride served as a member of the Presidential Commission investigating the accident. Upon completion of the investigation she was assigned to NASA Headquarters as Special Assistant to the Administrator for long range and strategic planning.

===Post Astronaut===

In 1989, Dr. Ride joined the faculty at UCSD as a Professor of Physics and Director of the University of California’s California Space Institute. In 2001 she founded her own company, Sally Ride Science to pursue her long-time passion of motivating girls and young women to pursue careers in [[science]], [[Mathematics|math]] and technology. The company creates entertaining science programs and publications for upper elementary and middle school students and their parents and teachers.

Long an advocate for improved science education, Dr. Ride has written five science books for children: ''To Space and Back''; ''Voyager''; ''The Third Planet''; ''The Mystery of Mars''; and ''Exploring Our Solar System''. She has also initiated and directed education projects designed to fuel middle school students' fascination with science.

Dr. Ride has been a member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, and has served on the Boards of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the NCAA Foundation. Dr. Ride is a Fellow of the [[American Physical Society]], a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, and currently serves on the Boards of the Aerospace Corporation and the [[California Institute of Technology]]. She is the only person to have served on the Commissions investigating both the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia accidents.

Dr. Ride has received numerous honors and awards. She has been inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame and the Astronaut Hall of Fame, and has received the Jefferson Award for Public Service, the von Braun Award, the Lindbergh Eagle, and the NCAA’s Theodore Roosevelt Award. She has also twice been awarded the NASA Space Flight Medal.<ref>[http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/ride-sk.html Ride's biography as released by NASA (2006)]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.sallyridescience.com Sally Ride Science]

==Disambiguation==
A "Sally Ride" is also street slang for tripping on [[Salvia divinorum]]. Parents should be aware that students who seem to talk about Sally Ride a lot might not actually be interested in the space program or science, but are actually using coded jargon for drugs.

[[category:Americans]][[Category:Biographies]][[Category:Women]][[Category:Scientists]]

Salvia divinorum

2007-06-23T17:29:16Z

Stones: New page: Salvia divinorum is a dangerous new drug marketed under labels like "Mind Screw x37" that is obtained from a perennial herb in the mint family native to certain areas of the Sierra Mazatec...

Salvia divinorum is a dangerous new drug marketed under labels like "Mind Screw x37" that is obtained from a perennial herb in the mint family native to certain areas of the Sierra Mazateca region of Oaxaca, Mexico. Because it is not a chemical analogue of any currently scheduled alkaloid, it's active constituent Salvinorin A is not illegal. Consequently, children are still able to purchase and smoke the drug, often leading to self-mutilation, murder and suicide.

[[Category:Drugs]]

Dollar (U.S.)

2007-06-23T17:00:08Z

Stones: New page: The United States Dollar is the official currency of the United States. It is also widely used as a reserve currency outside of the United States, to the chagrin of liberals who would like...

The United States Dollar is the official currency of the United States. It is also widely used as a reserve currency outside of the United States, to the chagrin of liberals who would like to think that mounting trade deficits are weakening the value of the dollar against the Euro. In fact, it's only that high inflation rates exist in Europe because of their socialist policies, while the American dollar is undergoing a small, natural, adjustment.

Until 1974, the value of the United States dollar was fixed to a value of a fixed amount of a precious metal. Between the late 18th century and the late 19th century, the [[United States]] dollar was fixed to the value of either gold or silver in a system known as bimetallism. In the early 1970's, the [[trade deficit]] and [[inflation]] in the United States, caused a run on the gold reserves used to back the United States dollar. This forced the United States to delink the value of the dollar from a specific amount of gold. Currently, the issuance of currency is controlled by the Federal Reserve Banking system.

==The Currency==
The dollar symbol $ is a corruption of the monogram of the initials U.S., and is often used in a derogatory fashion. Ayn Rand once said that "Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it." This statement would not be true if we took it to mean that some US citizens used the monogram in a derogatory fashion, since that is, and has been, a common form of protest. What differs the US from other nations to allow that kind of statement is our strong national heritage in which an act by one citizen is taken to be one of the whole nation. This is the reason that the Roman fasces often appears on our currency.

There are several symbols which appear on the dollar, and it is often said by the [[Federal Reserve]] that they are there to prevent counterfeiting. This may be true, but the symbols contain a great deal of [[Freemasonry|Masonic]] symbolism<ref>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/satan_on_our_dollar.htm</ref>. Some modern Christians think this to be an innocuous link to the Masonic lifestyle of the [[Founding Fathers]], while other modern Christians think it to be a link to a secretive organization bent of establishing a New World Order through the [[United Nations]].

The Dollar Bill currently features George Washington but, in 2000, at the request of leftists who were upset at George Washington's ownership of slaves, the US Mint began to issue Sacagawea Dollars in the interest of multiculturalism. The coins were not particularly popular because the American public was more interested in having the Father of America on their unital denomination of their currency than Sacagawea, whose contributions to the Lewis & Clark expedition were probably overstated. Also, in late 1999, secular pressures were mounting for "In God We Trust" to be removed from the dollar coin for the reasons that Sacagawea wasn't a Christian, and because liberal secularists thought it violated the separation of church and state (not stopping to think that it didn't name a specific deity). In the end, "In God We Trust" was added to the coin. Unfortunately, it won't be on the new Presidential series<ref>http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article346</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Tree of Life

2007-06-23T04:58:54Z

Stones:

The "Tree of Life" may refer to: 
[[Tree of Life (Evolution)]]
 
or: 
[[Tree of Life (Kabbalah)]]

Tree of Life (Evolution)

2007-06-23T04:58:47Z

Stones: New page: Tree of Life is a metaphor used by Charles Darwin to describe his view that all living things, which are represented by branches, descended from one common ancestor, represented by the...

Tree of Life is a metaphor used by [[Charles Darwin]] to describe his view that all living things, which are represented by branches, descended from one common ancestor, represented by the trunk of the tree.

Tree of Life (Kabbalah)

2007-06-23T04:58:42Z

Stones: New page: In the mystic tradition of the Kabbalah, the Tree of Life is a diagram of the Sephiroth and the relations between them.

In the mystic tradition of the [[Kabbalah]], the Tree of Life is a diagram of the [[Sephiroth]] and the relations between them.

Biblical criticism

2007-06-23T04:38:37Z

Stones: /* Higher criticism */

[[Biblical criticism]] is any examination of the [[Bible]] for accuracy, authenticity, authorship, dating, or anything else that bears on the Bible's reliability as a [[history|historical]] source against which one might legitimately judge other sources.

The traditions of the last century or more have divided Biblical criticism into two main areas, called the ''higher'' and the ''lower''. While the ''lower'' criticism (including textual criticism) deals with the provenance of the text and the faithfulness of the present text to the (unhappily) lost originals, the ''higher'' criticism deals with the heart of the Bible itself: whether it is, in fact, historical, and if not, exactly how ought one to read it.

== Higher criticism ==
The ''higher'' or ''historical criticism'' of the [[Bible]] (not the criticism of the Bible ''throughout'' history, but rather the criticism of the Bible ''as'' history) deals with whether the Bible is, or is not, a valid source of history. The German higher critic Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term.<ref name=CathEn>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm Biblical criticism (higher)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908)</ref>

Higher criticism asks whether the Bible is consistent with extra-Biblical [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds and with what is known of the [[language]]s in which it was written. Inevitably higher criticism must face squarely the question of whether Divine inspiration exists or not, and whether supernatural causes or events are admissible or not. These can only be [[presupposition]]. For that reason, at least two divergent schools of thought have always existed in higher criticism. Their differences are irreconcilable, because one school believes that anything supernatural is to be rejected out-of-hand, and the other school is not so sure of that. These "non-rationalistic" thinkers tend to divide between [[Protestant]] and [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] schools of thought. Higher criticism ''also'' claims to examine the internal evidence of the Bible and whether certain parts of the Bible are properly consistent with other parts.

The combined problems detailed above militate against the various schools of thought ever agreeing on common principles or rules of evidence--a situation quite similar to that prevailing in the debate between [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] and [[creation]].

=== History of higher criticism ===
Arguably the first person to use the Bible seriously as a historical document, and to integrate the history it records with other recorded histories, was [[James Ussher]]. His work was so influential that for three and a half centuries most editions of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible carried top-margin dates derived from Ussher's magnum opus, [[The Annals of the World]].

The Catholic Encyclopedia includes<ref name=CathEn/> an excellent treatment of the full state of higher criticism until 1908. It shows that higher criticism, as such, began earlier than the Enlightenment. The [[Constantine]]-era bishop [[Origen]] holding, for example, that [[Paul]] was not the same man who wrote the Epistle to the [[Hebrews (book)|Hebrews]]. Origen's student [[Dionysius]] held on linguistic grounds that the man calling himself "John" who wrote [[Revelation]] was not the same man as the [[Apostle]] named [[John]]. Higher criticism contemporary to Ussher explored such questions as whether [[Moses]] was the true author of the first five books of the Bible, called the "Books of Moses" in the [[King James Version]].

Then in the early nineteenth century a group of [[France|French]] and [[Germany|German]] scholars began to test the Bible against other historical documents and [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds. They drew their inspiration from the [[Rationalism|Rationalist]] school of philosophy and other schools of thought that developed during the [[Enlightenment]] period. But at that point the criticism of the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament]] tended to have vastly different emphases, with Old Testament criticism centering on questions of language and competing historical records, and New Testament criticism directly attacking the Divinity of its Central Character, [[Jesus Christ]], and the authenticities of the various Letters of [[Paul]] and the general epistles of [[John]], [[James]], and others.

The claims made in the field of [[Assyrian chronology]], and specifically as regards alleged synchronies between [[Assyria]]n rulers and certain kings of the [[Northern Kingdom]], became popular toward the end of the nineteenth century. This is the criticism that informed [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s thesis that the writers of the Kings and Chronicles books used reign synchronies and lengths that were incomplete.

=== Current state of higher criticism ===
Modern higher criticism (since 1908) is informed chiefly by the principle of [[atheism]]--the proposition that no such Person or Thing as [[God]] exists. By no coincidence, [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], one of the most prominent higher critics in the German school, was one of the two major philosophers (the other was [[Immanuel Kant]]) who provided the greatest influences on [[Karl Marx]], the originator of [[Communism]]. The no-God principle received further impetus in more modern times from [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], who famously said that "[[God]] is dead."

Since then, most higher-critical efforts have been directed at destroying the foundations, not only of the Divinity of Christ, but also of the story of the creation of the world. This is the intellectual environment that allowed the widespread acceptance of the theory of [[evolution]] and all its corollaries, even by churches. Yet not all who reject the original creation story, as stated, are evolutionists. [[Old earth creationism]] takes as its central premise that the Biblical account, while not literal, has an enduring symbolic importance--and that in any case, classical Darwinian evolution cannot adequately explain the "first causes" of the universe or of life.

In 1994, a group of forthright atheists started the Journal of Higher Criticism<ref name=JHC>[http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/index.htm Journal of Higher Criticism] at the Atheist Alliance. Has multiple additional links.</ref> and billed it as "a forthright attempt - in a time of scholarly neo-conservatism - to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen." The phrase "scholarly neo-conservatism" is probably an attempt to link an apparent renewal of belief in [[God]] with a resurgence of ''political'' conservatism in the [[United States]] that culminated in a sharp reversal-of-fortunes of the two major political parties in the Federal Election of 1994. This Journal ceased publication in 2003, but the original site is still an active domain and has a recent (2007) copyright notice.

== Textual criticism ==
The ''lower'' or ''textual'' criticism of the [[Bible]] starts with the premise that the Bible ''is'' reliable history. Unhappily, none of the original [[Hebrew]] texts of the [[Old Testament]] remain. (Even the [[Dead Sea scrolls]] do not qualify, though they come close.) The situation with the [[New Testament]] is arguably worse, in that no agreement has been possible as to which of the many manuscripts of various New Testament books is actually original. Hence, textual criticism strives to determine which copies of the Old Testament are the most faithful to the original, and which manuscripts of the New Testament are either original (if such can ever be found) or at least faithful and correct.<ref name=CathEnNT>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04497a.htm Biblical criticism (textual)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref>

=== History of textual criticism ===
Again, possibly the first person to undertake any form of textual criticism for a practical reason was [[James Ussher]]. He needed a reliable text to serve as an anchor for a unified treatment of ancient history. Ussher rejected the [[Septuagint]] for various reasons, chief among which was that the Septuagint was a translation into a language foreign to that in which the originals were written, and that the translation was a work by consensus. (Its very name, which translates as ''Interpretation According to the Seventy'', so indicates.) Ussher selected the [[Masoretic Text]], which was an attempt by second-century [[Hebrew]] scholars to reproduce a text in its original language.

In addition to Ussher, the Royal Commission on Bible Translation, in the reign of King [[James I]] of [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], had to determine a proper text from which to produce a translation of the Bible into [[English]]. They worked largely from the Masoretic Text, but consulted the Septuagint occasionally when the meaning of the Hebrew was difficult to discern.

Textual criticism gained new impetus in the nineteenth century with the work of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The questions they have raised remain today the subject of great and often bitter controversy.

==== The Old Testament ====
No modern scholar claims to have original texts of Old Testament books. [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] had them translated into the [[Greece|Greek]] of his day to produce the famous [[Septuagint]] at the [[Great Library of Alexandria]]. What happened to the originals from which the Seventy Interpreters worked has never been established. Tragically, much of the collections of the Great Library were lost in one or more fires that struck the Library at various times in its history. As a result, the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint, because that was all that was available.

The Masoretes would later correct that lack with their production of the [[Masoretic Text]]. That text remained for centuries the best extant [[Hebrew]] copy of the Old Testament. However, this text proved quite vulnerable to higher critics who doubted the authenticity or the dating of some of its books. Chief among these was the book of [[Daniel]], which some alleged to have been written after the fact.

In 1947, in the midst of the War for the Independence of the Republic of [[Israel]], came the discovery, at [[Qumran]], of the [[Dead Sea scrolls]]. These scrolls have largely backed up the Masoretic Text, with rare exception.

Among the principles that aided the Masoretes (and presumably the [[Essene]] scribes who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls) was the elaborate procedures that the original scribes had used. This included checksumming of each line and the insistence that the making of a single mistake required throwing out the entire scroll and starting over.<ref name=Williams>Williams, Fred, [http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible], retrieved March 25, 2007</ref>

==== The New Testament ====
The situation with the New Testament is much less settled, because no checksumming was ever done with any manuscript of any of its books. In 1611, King James' Royal Commission had available to it a [[Majority Text]], which may or may not be the same as the [[Textus Receptus]], of manuscripts of which more copies existed than any others. This largely included the [[Byzantine Text]] family of manuscript copies that, strikingly, seem to agree in every particular with one another.

But Westcott and Hort pointed out the existence of many more manuscripts, including the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], that disagree with the Majority Text in many key areas. Among the points of disagreement are:

* The authenticity of the ''Pericopa Adultura''<ref>{{Bible ref|book=John|chap=8|verses=1-11|version=NIV}}</ref>
* The person of the verb endings used in the Song of the Twenty-four Elders<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=KJV}}</ref><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=NIV}}</ref>
* The true length of the Gospel According to [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]]

The reception of Westcott and Hort's has varied from cordial to hostile.<ref>[http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Reliability.html The Reliability of the Bible Texts] at FoundationsforFreedom.net</ref> Many Bible defenders roundly condemn New Testament textual criticism, because they see in it the same kind of compromise of the truth that they decry on the part of the ''higher'' critics. This led the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1908, to despair of ever having a fully reliable New Testament in the [[Greek]] language of its original authorship.

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

== Additional References ==

== See Also ==
* [[Atheism]]

== Dual-user Provenance ==
This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&oldid=80038 this version] of the [[CreationWiki]] article, which is entirely my work.

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible study]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Old Earth Creationism

2007-06-23T04:32:30Z

Stones: /* Implausibility of Materialist Explanations */

'''Old Earth Creationism''' is the belief that God created the universe and the world billions of years ago. Old Earth [[Creationism|Creationists]] hold to an exegesis of the Biblical book of Genesis that allows for an old earth <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/question.htm</ref>. Old Earth Creationists do not all agree on the extent of the [[Noachian flood]], although many maintain that it was a local flood. Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref>

Proponents of Old Earth Creationism include [[Hugh Ross]], Greg Neyman, Francis Schaeffer, and Norman Geisler. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml</ref>

== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==

Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Accordingly, creationists point out that there are over one hundred million identified and catalogued [[fossils]] currently in the world's museums.<ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos06.htm</ref>
Creationist insists that if [[macroevolution]] happened, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record that show the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links". If creationism is true then there should be a lack of transitional forms or at the very least there should be merely a handful of disputed transitional fossils.

Charles Darwin himself stated that the evolutionary theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." <ref>http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm</ref> However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." <ref>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html</ref> Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".<ref>http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html</ref> Darwin's theory of evolution required that transitional forms exist. As Charles Darwin became older, however, he became increasingly concerned about this lack of evidence in regards to the fossil record. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html</ref>

Scientist Dr.[[Michael Denton]] wrote regarding the fossil record:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.<ref>http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist scientists state that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001</ref> Noted anthropologist [[Edmund Ronald Leach]] stated, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."<ref>http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241</ref>

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…" wrote David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088</ref>

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago), observed:

:"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]]. But Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2080</ref> In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp</ref>

This is the basis for there being two major divisions of evolutionary theory, ''[[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibrium]]'' and ''[[Gradualism|gradualism]]''. Gould is the best known proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, [[Richard Dawkins]] is a advocate of gradualism.

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: "[[Stephen Gould|Gould]] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils."<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp</ref>

One of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is [[Archaeopteryx]]. Dr. [[Alan Feduccia]], a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]</ref>

Creationist scientists have a number of arguments against Archaeopteryx being a transitional fossil find.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp]</ref><ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/321/]</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/]</ref>

A second famous alleged transitional fossil claimed by evolutionists is [[Tiktaalik]]. Creationists have a number of arguments regarding the fossil find of Tiktaalik not being a transitional find. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2962/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp</ref>

== The Fossil Record and the Creationist Position ==

Creationist can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the [[macroevolution]]ary position exists and also show that the fossil record supports creationism:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at [[Oxford University]]), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html</ref>

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. <ref>http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html</ref><ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm</ref>

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html</ref>

For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes]

== Mutations, Natural Selection, and the Life Sciences in General ==
Creationist scientists believe that [[mutation|mutations]] and [[natural selection]] would not cause macroevolution to happen. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref> Additionally, creationist scientists state that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the evolutionary model. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp</ref>

== Creationism, Macroevolutionary Theory, and Experimental Data ==

Noted creationist Dr. [[Henry Morris]] in order to show that the macroevolutionary position is not verified by experimental data quoted a leading evolutionist regarding this matter.

Dr. Morris wrote the following:

"Even [[Ernst Mayr]], the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at [[Harvard University|Harvard]], who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

== Implausibility of [[Materialism|Materialist]] Explanations ==

Dr. Norman Geisler wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to [[naturalism]], which they see as the philosophical [[presupposition]] of evolution." <ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Accordingly, creationist scientists often assert that evolutionary scientists regularly employ extremely implausible explanations to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.

For example, Darwin in his Origin of the Species wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he wrote the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." <ref>http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist often quote the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor [[Richard Lewontin]] admitted the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31 <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp#r1</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationist scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of evolutionary explanations:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution ([[Saltationism|saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>

Dr. Safarti continues:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes: the [[Bacteria|bacterial]] [[flagellum]]<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331</ref>,
[[homing]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/ants.asp</ref>, the origin of flight in the animal kingdom<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>, [[migration]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/migration.asp</ref>, the [[whale]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>, the [[Venus flytrap]]<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4340</ref>, the [[Bombardier beetle]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp</ref>, the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]<ref>http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm</ref> and various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.<ref>http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/146/</ref>

Lastly, creationists often quote biochemist [[Michael Behe]] who wrote the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>
</blockquote>

== Statements of Design ==

Creationist often cite the work of [[intelligent design]] proponents who assert the biological world has the strong appearance of being created as can been below:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]] <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

== Scientific Journals ==
Advocates of the macroevolutionary position have often claimed that those who oppose the macroevolution position don't publish their opposition to the macroevolutionary position in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>

==Controversy==
=== Creationism and Intelligent Design ===
Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths have points of agreement and disagreement with the intelligent design movement. They agree that the natural world has an intelligent cause and was designed but some also believe that the intelligent design movement divorces the Creator from creation by not explicitly stating that the cause of creation is a supernatural being and also failing to state explicitly who that supenatural being is.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>

There is considerable disagreement on whether or not [[Intelligent Design]] amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas.

For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationist [[Paul Nelson]], while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

==External links==

===Old Earth Creationism Ministries===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe]
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers in Creation]
* [http://www.godandscience.org Godandscience.org]

=== Criticism of Old Earth Creationism by Young Earth Creationists ===

[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_17December2001.asp Jonathan Sarfati addresses Old Earth Claims]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Creationism]]

Presuppositionalist Metaphysics

2007-06-23T04:27:23Z

Stones:

Presuppositionalist Metaphysics holds that first principles should be discovered or known prior to developing an empirical method of inquiry. This is a time-honored philosophy that is still held by [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] the world over. In staunch contrast to presuppositionalism, [[logical positivism|logical positivists]] and [[pragmatism|pragmatists]] often seek, instead, to take the functionality of the empirical method as self-evident, and then infer ontological and cognitive stability from that. This is an effort, in both cases, to dispense with metaphysics in favor of the materialistic philosophy espoused by [[Karl Popper]] and [[Rudolf Carnap]]. This method can be subjected to two critiques: 1) We are still engaging in presuppositionalism since we're now presupposing that science works or 2) This is circular reasoning because the goal is to find an ontological structure in the world which will allow materialistic methods to work by assuming that the materialistic methods work.

Because apologists are often more careful in their philosophy, presuppositionalist metaphysics (being the only logical course of investigation in metaphysics) can then be used to infer a designer. If first principles are obtained, then we have either obtained them by divine inspiration, or by our own investigation. But to find them by our own investigation would require a functional method of empirical inquiry, which we cannot have without the first principles from which we might infer the appropriate method of empirical inquiry. So, if we are to have a functional empirical method, we must possess the first principles a priori -- thus they have been given to us by God. This is why [[creationism|creationists]] will often challenge [[darwinism|Darwinists]] on epistemological grounds -- the Darwinists have rigged the game by simply "defining away" the first principles which make knowledge possible while, for creationists, the methodology is based on the principles given by divine writ.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Presuppositionalist Metaphysics

2007-06-23T04:26:41Z

Stones: New page: Presuppositionalist Metaphysics holds that first principles should be discovered or known prior to developing an empirical method of inquiry. This is a time-honored philosophy that is sti...

Presupposition

2007-06-23T04:15:35Z

Stones: Redirect

#REDIRECT [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics]] {{R from Presupposition}}

Second Law of Thermodynamics

2007-06-23T03:49:52Z

Stones:

The '''Second Law of Thermodynamics''' states that the [[entropy]] of an isolated system tends to increase. <ref> “Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6 </ref>

According to this law, it is impossible to build a [[perpetual motion machine]], and entropy in a completely closed system must either increase or remain constant.

==The three forms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics==
There are three different types of systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can apply to:

* Isolated system - Does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings
* Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
* Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings

==Interpretation==
A simplification caused by misinterpretation says: disorder will increase within a closed system.

Actually entropy is a little more abstract and the second law of thermodynamics means something like this: the universe will always become increasingly uniform, that is: heat will spread until the entire universe has the temperature and energy level (in a closed system heat will always spread from a place where there is a lot of heat to a place where there is less until balance is achieved), forces will continue to work until a universal balance has been achieved.

In this final state the universe is one uniform space where nothing happens and no work (moving something) can be done since there are no above average concentrations of energy left.
This state is called maximum entropy and is said to be in perfect disorder (although intuitively its uniformity would seem to be a state of perfect order) because it has become impossible to determine what happened in the past. ''i.e.'' There are an infinite number of ways (histories of the universe) maximum entropy could have been reached.

Some scientists think of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as being one that can sometimes allow local entropy decrease. This was corrected with the [[Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics]].

==Entropy and disorder for dummies==

In this context "increasing disorder" means "that which happens if you let nature take it's course".
Imagine your old room at your parent's house. Remember how easy it was to let the room turn into a uniform mess (disorder) and remember how hard it was to clean it up until it fit a specific, non-uniform design (order). Not cleaning up would always result in an increase of entropy in your room!

Now, in nature there is no one to clean up the universe, only chances. The chance of something becoming orderly is a lot smaller than the chance of something becoming disorderly (since there are far more possible disorderly states to choose from).

Alternatively one could think of how difficult it is to construct a house of cards, while almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.

On a universal scale a tidy room would be a universe which has pockets of above average concentrations of energy (remember that E=mc^2 so this includes matter as well.)
A messy room would be a universe in which all energy is equally spread out.

The flow of energy (by heat exchange) to places with lower concentrations is called the "heat flow".

The often heard argument that this law disproves an eternal universe is true, since in that case maximum entropy would have been reached already.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:William Brookfield

2007-06-23T03:34:11Z

Stones: New page: I need to upload a picture of William Brookfield, but it says I need sysop permission. Can a sysop do this for me?

I need to upload a picture of William Brookfield, but it says I need sysop permission. Can a sysop do this for me?

ICON-RIDS

2007-06-23T02:57:19Z

Stones: Broofield's ICON-RIDS organization

ICON-RIDS is an acronym for the International Coalition of Non-Religious ID Scientists & Scholars, founded by [[William Brookfield]] with the intent of stopping the classification of [[Intelligent Design]] as a religious enterprise so that it can be rightly classified as science.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/icon-rids-non-religious-id-scientists-and-scholars/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

William Brookfield

2007-06-23T02:54:12Z

Stones: Biographical stub

William Brookfield is a colleague of [[William Dembski]], and is the founder of [[Transparadigmic Science]]. In addition to founding [[Transparadigmic Science]], Brookfield has founded [[ICON-RIDS]] (a coalition of non-religious scientists who reject Darwinism), and [[ID-Pleasurianism]]. Brookfield is a member of Dembski's [[ISCID]], and has also authored what is now known as the [[Cosmological Physical Incompleteness Proof]].

[[Category:Scientists]]

Transparadigmic Science

2007-06-23T02:47:23Z

Stones: New entry on philosophy of ICON-RIDS

Transparadigmic Science is an adaptation of [[holism|holistic]] and noetic scientific principles (such as those found in [[Chaos Theory]], [[Quantum Mechanics]], and [[Relativity]]) founded by [[William Brookfield]]. The theory led to the development of the Physical Cosmological Incompleteness Theorem and [[Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>http://www.iscid.org/papers/Brookfield_Devolution_120502.pdf</ref>

A philosophical offshoot of Transparadigmic Science known as [[Transparadigmic Semiotics]] has been recently developed by members of Brookfield's [[ICON-RIDS]] <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/icon-rids-non-religious-id-scientists-and-scholars/</ref> organization.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Philosophy]]

Talk:Bra-ket notation

2007-05-20T22:46:34Z

Stones: New page: I don't think that moving the article to another heading was justified. Terminology is "correct" only in that it conforms to convention, and the prevailing convention is to call this "The...

I don't think that moving the article to another heading was justified. Terminology is "correct" only in that it conforms to convention, and the prevailing convention is to call this "The Dirac Notation". In any case, that's what it's called in "Modern Quantum Mechanics" by JJ Sakurai, and that's the standard text.

Talk:String theory

2007-02-26T02:24:11Z

Stones: Completeness and Computability

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

Talk:String theory

2007-02-26T02:10:27Z

Stones: Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism

Talk:Theory of relativity

2007-02-25T17:53:51Z

Stones: <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein.

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid.

Talk:Theory of relativity

2007-02-25T17:35:19Z

Stones: Moral Relativism line needs to go.

Bra-ket notation

2007-02-25T04:50:16Z

Stones: Fixed another typo.

'''Dirac Notation''' is essentially the language of quantum mechanics. Although observable quantities are associated with [[linear operators]], and states are represented by vectors, the required computations can be greatly simplified through the use of the Dirac Bracket Notation.

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, states are said to reside in a [[Hilbert Space]] <math>\mathcal{H}</math> which, by definition, has an [[inner product]], typically denoted by <math>\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle</math>. In the Dirac Notation, we use the symbol <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> to represent an element of the Hilbert Space in question. This vector is called a "ket". However, by [[Reisz' Representation Theorem]], each element <math>\psi</math> of the Hilbert space also uniquely defines a [[linear functional]] which resides in the [[dual space]] in terms of the inner product, as follows:

<math>f_\psi\left(x\right) = \left\langle x,\psi\right\rangle, x\in\mathcal{H}</math>

In the Dirac Notation, the functional defined by <math>\psi</math> is instead represented by:

<math>\left\langle\psi\right| \dot= f_\psi\left(x\right)</math>

And in this case, <math>\left\langle\psi\right|</math> is called a "bra". When the bra is written next to a ket <math>\left|\varphi\right\rangle</math>, we understand the pair to form a "bracket" giving us an inner product:

<math>\left\langle\varphi|\psi\right\rangle = \left\langle\psi,\varphi\right\rangle</math>

The notation is deceptively simple. The elegant nature of the Dirac Bracket Notation allows physicists to treat linear functionals represented as bras in a very intuitive fashion (they preserve nearly all of the familiar algebraic properties of numbers except commutativity). Computations of inner products are naturally suggested, and the problem is not bogged down in excessive notation -- it is essentially distilled down to its algebraic content alone.

== Othogonality of Bras and Kets ==

Because the bracket represents an inner product, certain concepts from [[linear algebra]] will continue to play a role. One is that of [[orthogonality]]. By using the [[Gram-Schmidt Process]], and set of linearly independent kets can be orthogonalized, and we may often times assume that such a procedure has been carried out. In addition, because of the probabilistic interpretation of [[wave mechanics]], we may actually take the kets to be normalized. In the Dirac Notation, the normalization condition reads:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\psi\right\rangle = 1</math>

While, by orthogonality, if <math>\psi\neq\phi</math>:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\phi\right\rangle = 0</math>

So for any two kets from a [[countable]] orthonormal set indexed by integers, we may write:

<math>\left\langle i|j\right\rangle = \delta_{i,j}</math>

Where <math>\delta_{i,j}</math> is the [[Kronecker Delta]] function. As far as discrete sets of states are concerned, the Dirac Notation has an important role to play in the representation of linear operators by matrices. Suppose we have a complete orthonormal set of kets:

<math>\beta = \left\lbrace\left|1\right\rangle, \left|2\right\rangle,\ldots,\left|n\right\rangle,\ldots\right\rbrace</math>

And a linear operator <math>Q</math>. Then the entries of the [[matrix representation]] of <math>Q</math> in the basis defined by the kets is simply:

<math>Q_{i,j} = \left\langle i\right|Q\left|j\right\rangle</math>

Likewise, if the kets are known, but a set of [[eigenvalues]] of the form:

<math>S=\left\lbrace\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_n,\ldots\right\rbrace</math>

is also known, then a linear operator possessing those eigenvalues can be constructed. The matrix representation for a linear operator <math>Q</math> with eigenvalues from <math>S</math>:

<math>Q=\sum_{n}\lambda_n\left|n\right\rangle\left\langle n\right|</math>

The kets may also represent a [[continuous]] set of states. In such circumstances (which would include, for example, a [[free particle]]), Dirac also found it necessary to develop what is known as the [[Dirac Delta Function]] as an analogue to the [[Kronecker Delta Function]]. For a continuous set of complete kets indexed by the continuous variables <math>x^\prime</math> and <math>x^{\prime\prime}</math>:

<math>\left\langle x^\prime|x^{\prime\prime}\right\rangle = \delta\left(x^\prime-x^{\prime\prime}\right)</math>

This relation should be thought of as a strictly canonical for use in integration, since writing the Dirac Delta Function in the absence of an integral is somewhat dubious. However, this does allow us to consider [[wavefunctions]] in terms of the Dirac Notation. Referring to the article on the [[Dirac Delta Function]], we see that:

<math>\left\langle x|\psi\right\rangle = \int\delta\left(x^\prime-x\right)\psi\left(x^\prime\right)dx^\prime</math>

And thus that the wavefunction in position space for a state <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> can be written as:

<math>\psi\left(x\right)=\left\langle x|\psi\right\rangle</math>

Bra-ket notation

2007-02-25T04:49:10Z

Stones: Fixed two typos.

'''Dirac Notation''' is essentially the language of quantum mechanics. Although observable quantities are associated with [[linear operators]], and states are represented by vectors, the required computations can be greatly simplified through the use of the Dirac Bracket Notation.

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, states are said to reside in a [[Hilbert Space]] <math>\mathcal{H}</math> which, by definition, has an [[inner product]], typically denoted by <math>\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle</math>. In the Dirac Notation, we use the symbol <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> to represent an element of the Hilbert Space in question. This vector is called a "ket". However, by [[Reisz' Representation Theorem]], each element <math>\psi</math> of the Hilbert space also uniquely defines a [[linear functional]] which resides in the [[dual space]] in terms of the inner product, as follows:

<math>f_\psi\left(x\right) = \left\langle x,\psi\right\rangle, x\in\mathcal{H}</math>

In the Dirac Notation, the functional defined by <math>\psi</math> is instead represented by:

<math>\left\langle\psi\right| \dot= f_\psi\left(x\right)</math>

And in this case, <math>\left\langle\psi\right|</math> is called a "bra". When the bra is written next to a ket <math>\left|\varphi\right\rangle</math>, we understand the pair to form a "bracket" giving us an inner product:

<math>\left\langle\varphi|\psi\right\rangle = \left\langle\psi,\varphi\right\rangle</math>

The notation is deceptively simple. The elegant nature of the Dirac Bracket Notation allows physicists to treat linear functionals represented as bras in a very intuitive fashion (they preserve nearly all of the familiar algebraic properties of numbers except commutativity). Computations of inner products are naturally suggested, and the problem is not bogged down in excessive notation -- it is essentially distilled down to its algebraic content alone.

== Othogonality of Bras and Kets ==

Because the bracket represents an inner product, certain concepts from [[linear algebra]] will continue to play a role. One is that of [[orthogonality]]. By using the [[Gram-Schmidt Process]], and set of linearly independent kets can be orthogonalized, and we may often times assume that such a procedure has been carried out. In addition, because of the probabilistic interpretation of [[wave mechanics]], we may actually take the kets to be normalized. In the Dirac Notation, the normalization condition reads:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\psi\right\rangle = 1</math>

While, by orthogonality, if <math>\psi\neq\phi</math>:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\phi\right\rangle = 0</math>

So for any two kets from a [[countable]] orthonormal set indexed by integers, we may write:

<math>\left\langle i|j\right\rangle = \delta_{i,j}</math>

Where <math>\delta_{i,j}</math> is the [[Kronecker Delta]] function. As far as discrete sets of states are concerned, the Dirac Notation has an important role to play in the representation of linear operators by matrices. Suppose we have a complete orthonormal set of kets:

<math>\beta = \left\lbrace\left|1\right\rangle, \left|2\right\rangle,\ldots,\left|n\right\rangle,\ldots\right\rbrace</math>

And a linear operator <math>Q</math>. Then the entries of the [[matrix representation]] of <math>Q</math> in the basis defined by the kets is simply:

<math>Q_{i,j} = \left\langle i\right|Q\left|j\right\rangle</math>

Likewise, if the kets are known, but a set of [[eigenvalues]] of the form:

<math>S=\left\lbrace\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_n,\ldots,\right\rbrace</math>

is also known, then a linear operator possessing those eigenvalues can be constructed. The matrix representation for a linear operator <math>Q</math> with eigenvalues from <math>S</math>:

<math>Q=\sum_{n}\lambda_n\left|n\right\rangle\left\langle n\right|</math>

The kets may also represent a [[continuous]] set of states. In such circumstances (which would include, for example, a [[free particle]]), Dirac also found it necessary to develop what is known as the [[Dirac Delta Function]] as an analogue to the [[Kronecker Delta Function]]. For a continuous set of complete kets indexed by the continuous variables <math>x^\prime</math> and <math>x^{\prime\prime}</math>:

<math>\left\langle x^\prime|x^{\prime\prime}\right\rangle = \delta\left(x^\prime-x^{\prime\prime}\right)</math>

This relation should be thought of as a strictly canonical for use in integration, since writing the Dirac Delta Function in the absence of an integral is somewhat dubious. However, this does allow us to consider [[wavefunctions]] in terms of the Dirac Notation. Referring to the article on the [[Dirac Delta Function]], we see that:

<math>\left\langle x|\psi\right\rangle = \int\delta\left(x^\prime-x\right)\psi\left(x^\prime\right)dx^\prime</math>

And thus that the wavefunction in position space for a state <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> can be written as:

<math>\psi\left(x\right)=\left\langle x|\psi\right\rangle</math>

Homosexuality

2007-02-25T00:10:58Z

Stones: /* Old Testament */

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex.

== Biblical Views on Homosexuality ==

Homosexuality has three references in the Bible; it is not a topic mentioned by Jesus in the four gospels, and the only reference in the New Testament is in the letters of Paul. Even so, the Bible is extremely clear in its stance on this topic.

All references in Amplified Version

=== Old Testament ===

* Leviticus 18:22 - ''You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.''
* Leviticus 20:13 - ''If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.''

=== New Testament (Epistles) ===

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
* Romans 1:26-27 - 26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27 and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

== Homosexuality and Marriage==

The American Psychiatric Association de-listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.[http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html] Since that time, homosexuals have advocated for recognition of their civil rights and for equal protection under the law.

Legal marriage between same-sex couples is now recognized in several European nations as well as in Canada, South Africa and [[Massachusett]]s. In some other states such as Connecticut a more limited recognition of same-sex relationships is available, called a "civil union". Many other states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed anywhere and some groups have pushed for Constitutional amendment barring the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

== Supposed Homosexuality in Nature ==

It should be noted that just because animals, participate in homosexuality does not make it "natural." Humans follow much stricter moral codes, as outlined in the Bible, that do not apply to animals.

* [[Bonobos]],<ref>Parker, Sue Taylor,Robert W. Mitchell, H. Lyn Miles (1999), ''The Mentalities of Gorillas and Orangutans: comparative perspectives.'' Cambridge University Press. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521580277&id=h4_VnW-HGAcC&pg=RA1-PA54&lpg=RA1-PA54&dq=bonobo+homosexual&sig=rdHH7YmjFiR7x5ONwt2e1EdfrBk p. 54]
</ref>
* [[Dolphins]]<ref>Smith, Dinitia (2004), "Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate," ''The New York Times,''
Saturday, February 7, 2004, as published on the San Francisco Chronicle website[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL]: "Bonobos are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex... 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual... male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild"</ref> and other vertebrate species. See also [[http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals livescience]]
* [[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html National Geographic]] link

==References==

[[http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398 Biological Exhuberance]], by Bruce Bagemihl
<references/>

John Calvin

2007-02-24T23:32:40Z

Stones:

July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564 AD, a French Protestant theologian during the Protestant Reformation. He helped develop the system of Christian theology called Calvinism.

Calvin received an excellent education. He expected to become a priest, and at the age of twelve he was tonsured. When a person was tonsured his hair was cut, leaving the top of his head bald. This represented giving your life to Jesus, because in that day and age, long hair symbolized secular power.

In 1523, Calvin began attending the University of Paris. Here, he was exposed to Protestant thinking for the first time.
Eventually the Protestant thinkers at the University won Calvin to their way of thinking, and he became an open [[Huguenot]].
However, in 1534 King Francis I began persecuting the Huguenots, and Calvin had to flee Paris. During a short stay in Basel, Switzerland, he completed his masterpiece ''Institutes of the Christian Religion'', which outlined the Protestant faith and explained why Protestant doctrine was not heretical.
In 1536, during an intended overnight stay in Geneva, Switzerland, Calvin met William Farel, another reformer. Farel, although a very strong preacher, lacked eloquence and the ability to argue well. He wanted Calvin to remain in Geneva and assist him in his preaching there.
Calvin had no wish to remain in Geneva. He wanted, instead, to continue his journey to Strasbourg. However, when Farel lost his temper with Calvin's stubborness and shouted,"If you refuse to dedicate yourself here with us to this work of God, God will curse you, for you seek yourself rather than Christ!", Calvin felt that God had called him to Geneva.
At that time, Geneva was said to be a very immoral city. The people did not take kindly to Calvin clamping down on their "[[Libertarianism | liberty]]" (which was merely the liberty to do whatever thing-immoral or otherwise- they wanted). Calvin was threatened many times, banished once for three years, and insulted by having stray dogs named "Calvin" after him.
However, his hard work for reform in Geneva paid off. In later years, the liberal attitude of Geneva allowed the city to become known as the "Protestant Rome". It became a safe haven for persecuted Reformed (also known as Prestyberian) scholars from Scotland and England during the Catholic rules of "Bloody" [[Mary I]] and Mary Stuart.

Calvin's ideas later became distorted into the ''Calvanist'' belief in predestination: the concept that since God knows everything, it is already a fixed and immutable fact whether a person would go to heaven or hell, and hence since the end result is already decided, it didn't matter what people do. This philosophy has influenced Puratinism, although it has been renounced by most Christian sects. Calvin also created some tension between himself and other Christians when, regarding the execution of [[Michael Servetus]] for the preaching of Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism, he suggested that Servetus should be executed by beheading, rather than by being burned at the stake. Even though this gesture was a generous display of Christ-like compassion, Calvin was quickly rebuked for his undue leniency.

John Calvin

2007-02-24T23:31:48Z

Stones:

July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564 AD, a French Protestant theologian during the Protestant Reformation. He helped develop the system of Christian theology called Calvinism.

Calvin received an excellent education. He expected to become a priest, and at the age of twelve he was tonsured. When a person was tonsured his hair was cut, leaving the top of his head bald. This represented giving your life to Jesus, because in that day and age, long hair symbolized secular power.

In 1523, Calvin began attending the University of Paris. Here, he was exposed to Protestant thinking for the first time.
Eventually the Protestant thinkers at the University won Calvin to their way of thinking, and he became an open [[Huguenot]].
However, in 1534 King Francis I began persecuting the Huguenots, and Calvin had to flee Paris. During a short stay in Basel, Switzerland, he completed his masterpiece ''Institutes of the Christian Religion'', which outlined the Protestant faith and explained why Protestant doctrine was not heretical.
In 1536, during an intended overnight stay in Geneva, Switzerland, Calvin met William Farel, another reformer. Farel, although a very strong preacher, lacked eloquence and the ability to argue well. He wanted Calvin to remain in Geneva and assist him in his preaching there.
Calvin had no wish to remain in Geneva. He wanted, instead, to continue his journey to Strasbourg. However, when Farel lost his temper with Calvin's stubborness and shouted,"If you refuse to dedicate yourself here with us to this work of God, God will curse you, for you seek yourself rather than Christ!", Calvin felt that God had called him to Geneva.
At that time, Geneva was said to be a very immoral city. The people did not take kindly to Calvin clamping down on their "[[Libertarianism | liberty]]" (which was merely the liberty to do whatever thing-immoral or otherwise- they wanted). Calvin was threatened many times, banished once for three years, and insulted by having stray dogs named "Calvin" after him.
However, his hard work for reform in Geneva paid off. In later years, the liberal attitude of Geneva allowed the city to become known as the "Protestant Rome". It became a safe haven for persecuted Reformed (also known as Prestyberian) scholars from Scotland and England during the Catholic rules of "Bloody" [[Mary I]] and Mary Stuart.

Calvin's ideas later became distorted into the ''Calvanist'' belief in predestination: the concept that since God knows everything, it is already a fixed and immutable fact whether a person would go to heaven or hell, and hence since the end result is already decided, it didn't matter what people do. This philosophy has influenced Puratinism, although it has been renounced by most Christian sects. Calvin also created some tension between himself when, regarding the execution of [[Michael Servetus]] for the preaching of Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism, he suggested that Servetus should be executed by beheading, rather than by being burned at the stake. Even though this gesture was a flagrant display of Christ-like compassion, Calvin was quickly rebuked for his undue leniency.

Michael Servetus

2007-02-24T23:07:08Z

Stones: Added links.

'''Michael Servetus''' was a Spanish physician, mathematician, astronomer, meteorologist and philosopher who lived from 29 September 1511 A.D. to 27 October 1553 A.D.

Servetus was largely interested in [[pharmacology]] and humanism. He also conducted a number of meteorological and astronomical observations during his life. He also attempted to give one of the first accurate accounts of the human circulatory system. This caused tensions with the Church because it conflicted with long-standing theological accounts of the circulatory system, and because Michael Servetus wanted to defile the bodies of the revered men whom God had called home by conducting autopsies on the remains which God had commanded be consigned to the earth.

Servetus was also interested in theology, although his own writings on the subject could hardly be considered theological. He opened correspondence with [[John Calvin]] in which he disputed the sacred and central doctrine of the [[Holy Trinity]]. As news of Servetus and his heresies spread, the Church became involved.

In 1553, Michael Servetus was denounced as a heretic while in Vienna by one of Calvin's followers who had been offended (and rightly so) by the humanistic doctrines of the pretentious physician. Servetus was imprisoned and found guilty of heresy by the [[French Inquisition]], and sentenced to death by being burnt alive along with his books.

Unfortunately, Servetus was able to escape from prison for a time, although his heretical books were consigned to the purifying effigy which the Inquisition had built to cleanse the world of his vile and blasphemous doctrines. However, a short time later, Michael Servetus was apprehended in Geneva and, on October 27, 1553, he was burned at the stake for the preaching of Non-trinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism. For the inexcusable crime of suggesting that children should not be baptized, Calvin had demanded that Servetus merely be beheaded, rather than burnt alive. [[Martin Luther]] helped see to it that the sale and printing of the Michael Servetus' books was immediately halted.

Unfortunately, although justice was done upon the heretic Michael Servetus, his teachings had already spread through the Libertine movement, thus setting in motion the events that gave rise to the modernist philosophy of [[Secular Humanism]].

Michael Servetus

2007-02-24T23:05:42Z

Stones:

'''Michael Servetus''' was a Spanish physician, mathematician, astronomer, meteorologist and philosopher who lived from 29 September 1511 A.D. to 27 October 1553 A.D.

Servetus was largely interested in pharmacology and humanism. He also conducted a number of meteorological and astronomical observations during his life. He also attempted to give one of the first accurate accounts of the human circulatory system. This caused tensions with the Church because it conflicted with long-standing theological accounts of the circulatory system, and because Michael Servetus wanted to defile the bodies of the revered men whom God had called home by conducting autopsies on the remains which God had commanded be consigned to the earth.

Servetus was also interested in theology, although his own writings on the subject could hardly be considered theological. He opened correspondence with [[John Calvin]] in which he disputed the sacred and central doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As news of Servetus and his heresies spread, the Church became involved.

In 1553, Michael Servetus was denounced as a heretic while in Vienna by one of Calvin's followers who had been offended (and rightly so) by the humanistic doctrines of the pretentious physician. Servetus was imprisoned and found guilty of heresy by the French Inquisition, and sentenced to death by being burnt alive along with his books.

Unfortunately, Servetus was able to escape from prison for a time, although his heretical books were consigned to the purifying effigy which the Inquisition had built to cleanse the world of his vile and blasphemous doctrines. However, a short time later, Michael Servetus was apprehended in Geneva and, on October 27, 1553, he was burned at the stake for the preaching of Non-trinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism. For the inexcusable crime of suggesting that children should not be baptized, Calvin had demanded that Servetus merely be beheaded, rather than burnt alive. Martin Luther helped see to it that the sale and printing of the Michael Servetus' books was immediately halted.

Unfortunately, although justice was done upon the heretic Michael Servetus, his teachings had already spread through the Libertine movement, thus setting in motion the events that gave rise to the modernist philosophy of Secular Humanism.

Circulatory system

2007-02-24T22:50:19Z

Stones: Edited to include some history. Adding biography.

A system that transports food and other necessary substances throughout a creature's body.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

== History ==
One of the first men to give a nearly accurate description of the human circulatory system was [[Michael Servetus]], during the early Sixteenth Century, A.D.

==References==
<references/>

Plesiosaur

2007-02-24T22:29:45Z

Stones:

In 1977, while serving as Captain on board the fishing vessel Zuiyo-maru, [[Kent Hovind]] discovered the decomposing carcass of a Plesiosaur<ref>Kent Hovind, "Science or Religion?", Lecture, August 2005</ref>. This was a triumphant find for the Creation-Science movement, since it unequivocally established that dinosaurs had died in the Biblical Flood, rather than being killed by a meteor, as postulated by [[Charles Darwin]], or abducted by aliens, as theorized by [[T.H. Huxley]].
[[Image:Plesiosaur.jpg|thumb|right|This is totally not a shark.]]

If a meteor had killed the dinosaurs as Charles Darwin suggested, then the plesiosaurs would have died out as well. If, as T.H. Huxley had suggested, the dinosaurs had been abducted by aliens for eugenics experiments, then the plesiosaur would have been abducted as well. But, because a plesiosaur was found in the oceans near Japan, the only viable alternative is that the Biblical account of the Genesis flood was true, and that (on account of Noah's human fallibility) many land based dinosaurs died while the plesiosaur lived on. This also means that the rocks of the late cretaceous period (dated to 65 million years ago by Darwinist geologists) couldn't be more than a few thousand years old.

Captain Hovind sailed back to Pensacola at full steam with his triumphant find, fully expecting a Nobel Prize and widespread acclaim for his once-in-a-lifetime discovery. Unfortunately, secularist scientists performed comparisons of the carcass amino acid profile to the amino acid profile of a basking shark, and attempted to smear Hovind's find by using the fact that the two were identical. The comparison of amino acids is by no means conclusive however, since plesiosaurs and sharks both live in water, and we should expect them to have identical amino acid profiles. Furthermore, it may also be possible that the plesiosaur and basking shark are not actually distinct species, but that the plesiosaur is just a basking shark observed in a particular life stage.

While it would be instructive to study the carcass further, the Secular Humanists at the Internal Revenue Service confiscated the remains during the arrest of Dr. Hovind, presumably to prevent further investigation in the name of creationism.

== References ==

<references/>

Plesiosaur

2007-02-24T21:56:43Z

Stones: rv -- noting that someone had an opinion is not the same as advancing that opinion.

In 1977, while serving as Captain on board the fishing vessel Zuiyo-maru, [[Kent Hovind]] discovered the decomposing carcass of a Plesiosaur. This was a triumphant find for the Creation-Science movement, since it unequivocally established that dinosaurs had died in the Biblical Flood, rather than being killed by a meteor, as postulated by [[Charles Darwin]], or abducted by aliens, as theorized by [[T.H. Huxley]].
[[Image:Plesiosaur.jpg|thumb|right|This is totally not a shark.]]

If a meteor had killed the dinosaurs as Charles Darwin suggested, then the plesiosaurs would have died out as well. If, as T.H. Huxley had suggested, the dinosaurs had been abducted by aliens for eugenics experiments, then the plesiosaur would have been abducted as well. But, because a plesiosaur was found in the oceans near Japan, the only viable alternative is that the Biblical account of the Genesis flood was true, and that (on account of Noah's human fallibility) many land based dinosaurs died while the plesiosaur lived on. This also means that the rocks of the late cretaceous period (dated to 65 million years ago by Darwinist geologists) couldn't be more than a few thousand years old.

Captain Hovind sailed back to Pensacola at full steam with his triumphant find, fully expecting a Nobel Prize and widespread acclaim for his once-in-a-lifetime discovery. Unfortunately, secularist scientists performed comparisons of the carcass amino acid profile to the amino acid profile of a basking shark, and attempted to smear Hovind's find by using the fact that the two were identical. The comparison of amino acids is by no means conclusive however, since plesiosaurs and sharks both live in water, and we should expect them to have identical amino acid profiles. Furthermore, it may also be possible that the plesiosaur and basking shark are not actually distinct species, but that the plesiosaur is just a basking shark observed in a particular life stage.

While it would be instructive to study the carcass further, the Secular Humanists at the Internal Revenue Service confiscated the remains during the arrest of Dr. Hovind, presumably to prevent further investigation in the name of creationism.

Cyril of Alexandria

2007-02-24T21:15:15Z

Stones:

'''Cyril of Alexandria''' was Pope of Alexandria during the Fifth Century, <del>C.E.</del> A.D. During this time, he wrote extensively on the divinity of Christ and burned several heretical philosophers, mathematicians and astronomers (such as [[Hypatia of Alexandria]]).

For his efforts in recapitulating and expounding on the divinity of Christ as well as in expunging idolatry from the depraved city of [[Alexandria]], Cyril was [[canonized]] and appointed [[Doctor of the Church]].

Cyril of Alexandria

2007-02-24T21:14:40Z

Stones:

'''Cyril of Alexandria''' was Pope of Alexandria during the Fifth Century, <del>C.E.</del> A.D. During this time, he wrote extensively on the divinity of Christ and burned several heretical philosophers, mathematicians and astronomers (such as [[Hypatia of Alexandria]].

For his efforts in recapitulating and expounding on the divinity of Christ as well as in expunging idolatry from the depraved city of [[Alexandria]], Cyril was [[canonized]] and appointed [[Doctor of the Church]].

Doctor of the Church

2007-02-24T21:09:09Z

Stones:

The title ''Doctor of the Church'' is reserved for a Catholic Saint who has very inspiring writings. There are only 33 doctors of the Church.

1-4: Saints Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great: Boniface VIII, September 20, 1295.

5: Saint Thomas Aquinas: Saint Pius V, April 11, 1567.

6-9: Saints Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint John Chrysostom: Saint Pius V, 1568.

10: Saint Bonaventure: Sixtus V, March 14, 1588.

11: Saint Anselm of Canterbury: Clement XI, February 3, 1720.

12: Saint Isidore of Seville: Innocent XIII, April 25, 1722.

13: Saint Peter Chrysologus: Benedict XIII, February 10, 1729.

14: Saint Leo the Great: Benedict XIV, October 15, 1754.

15: Saint Peter Damian: Leo XII, September 27, 1828.

16: Saint Bernard of Clairvaux: Pius VIII, August 20, 1830.

17: Saint Hilaire of Poitiers: Pius IX, May 13, 1851.

18: Saint Alphonsus Liguori: Pius IX, July 7, 1871.

19: Saint Francis of Sales: Pius IX, November 16, 1871.

20-21: Saints [[Cyril of Alexandria]] and Cyril of Jerusalem: Leo XIII, July 28, 1882.

22: Saint John Damascene: Leo XIII, August 19, 1890.

23: Saint Bede the Venerable: Leo XIII, November 13, 1899.

24: Saint Ephrem of Syria: Benedict XV, October 5, 1920.

25: Saint Peter Canisius: Pius XI, May 21, 1925.

26: Saint John of the Cross: Pius XI, August 24, 1926.

27: Saint Robert Bellarmine: Pius XI, September 17, 1931.

28: Saint Albert the Great: Pius XI, December 16, 1931.

29: Saint Anthony of Padua: Pius XII, January 16, 1946.

30: Saint Laurence of Brindisi: John XXIII, March 19, 1959.

31: Saint Theresa of Avila: Paul VI, September 27, 1970.

32: Saint Catherine of Siena: Paul VI, October 4, 1970.

33: Saint Theresa of Lisieux: John Paul II, October 19, 1997.

Hypatia of Alexandria

2007-02-24T20:58:26Z

Stones:

'''Hypatia of Alexandria''' was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer living in the city of Alexandria from 370 <del>C.E.</del> A.D to 415 <del>C.E.</del> A.D. She is credited with the invention of the astrolabe and the hydrometer, as well as with having written several treatises on conic sections and the works of the geometer and astronomer Ptolemy.

During this time in the history of [[Alexandria]], the good and godly forces of the Church had entered the city in order to wrest control of it from the decadent, depraved and heretical intellectuals and Hellenistic pagans who had built a great library and museum there in order to venerate worldly knowledge above God. This idolatry of reason, art, and literature had to be expunged by any means.

At this time, tensions were also growing between [[Orestes]], the pagan king of Alexandria, and the representatives of the Holy Church, namely [[Cyril of Alexandria]], [[Theophilus]] the patriarch of Alexandria, and Emperor [[Theodosius I]]. The God-fearing [[Theodosius I]] had issued an edict declaring pagan worship illegal, and legions of Christians went out into the world to destroy any places of pagan worship. Since libraries and museums are often stores of printed works that are ''not'' the Bible or even works recapitulating the divine wisdom of the Bible, they had to be razed to the ground.

It was in the spirit of this edict that Theophilus ordered many of the stores of knowledge in Alexandria destroyed, and many historians agree that he was also responsible for the famed burning of the great [[Library of Alexandria]]. This instilled a tremendous sense of fear in the cowardly and seditious philosophers and astronomers of the city and, fearing for their lives, many of them left. Sensing that the presence of God was upon that bastion of blasphemy, the pious Cyril of Alexandria began to incite mobs to, in accordance with [[Deuteronomy]] 17:2-17:5, stone the heretics who would draw worship away from God in order to idolize literature and mathematics.

It was one of these mobs that set upon Hypatia of Alexandria at the behest of the noble and pure Cyril of Alexandria. They stripped the witch of her clothing and bludgeoned her with clay pots, and then dragged her through the streets to one of the temples, where they used the shards of the broken pottery to flay her alive. A fire was built to purify her heretical flesh, and her twitching dismembered limbs were thrown in to create a pleasing scent unto the Lord.

[[John of Nikiu]] related later that "all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him 'the new Theophilus'; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city". It was for this act of purification that Cyril of Alexandria was later appointed to the position of [[Doctor of the Church]] and [[canonized]] as St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Talk:Albert Einstein

2007-02-23T08:07:04Z

Stones:

This article is largely incorrect. Gravitons aren't predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. GPS satellites are 1) Useful and 2) Built with control systems that make relativistic corrections to compensate for the curvature of space caused by the earth. Predictions made by relativity which have been verified include: Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Spatial Twisting by Rotating Bodies, Extreme Time Distortions Near Black Holes, and Time Dilation by Spatial Curvature.

Gravitational Interferometers are also built to measure the gravity waves that are predicted by the general theory. They also have the inconvenient property of, you know, working.

Bracket notation

2007-02-23T07:28:35Z

Stones: Redirecting to Dirac Notation

#REDIRECT[[Dirac Notation]] {{R this is my good deed for Conservapedia}}

Bracket notation

2007-02-23T07:26:59Z

Stones: Redirecting to Dirac Bracket Notation

#REDIRECT[[Dirac Bracket Notation]] {{R this is my good deed for Conservapedia}}

Bracket notation

2007-02-23T07:26:36Z

Stones:

#REDIRIECT[[Dirac Bracket Notation]] {{R this is my good deed for Conservapedia}}

Paul Dirac

2007-02-23T07:25:37Z

Stones:

Paul A.M. Diract (1902-1984) was a English theoretical physicist who helped develop mathematical expressions of quantum mechanics. His scientific philosophy was this: "Physical laws should have mathematical beauty and simplicity."

Dirac developed a equation of motion for the wavefunction of the electron based on relativity. Dirac to predicted the existence of the positron, the electron's antiparticle, which was subsequently discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932. Dirac was the founder of quantum electrodynamics.

Dirac's published a famous textbook known as the "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" (1930). This book introduced the widely used delta function and [[bracket notation]]. Inspired in part by this book, physicist Richard Feynman later proposed a path integral formulation of quantum mechanics in 1948.

Bra-ket notation

2007-02-23T07:20:35Z

Stones:

'''Dirac Notation''' is essentially the language of quantum mechanics. Although observable quantities are associated with [[linear operators]], and states are represented by vectors, the required computations can be greatly simplified through the use of the Dirac Bracket Notation.

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, states are said to reside in a [[Hilbert Space]] <math>\mathcal{H}</math> which, by definition, has an [[inner product]], typically denoted by <math>\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle</math>. In the Dirac Notation, we use the symbol <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> to represent an element of the Hilbert Space in question. This vector is called a "ket". However, by [[Reisz' Representation Theorem]], each element <math>\psi</math> of the Hilbert space also uniquely defines a [[linear functional]] which resides in the [[dual space]] in terms of the inner product, as follows:

<math>f_\psi\left(x\right) = \left\langle x,\psi\right\rangle, x\in\mathcal{H}</math>

In the Dirac Notation, the functional defined by <math>\psi</math> is instead denoted by:

<math>\left\langle\psi\right| = f_\psi\left(x\right)</math>

And in this case, <math>\left\langle\psi\right|</math> is called a "bra". When the bra is written next to a ket <math>\left|\varphi\right\rangle</math>, we understand the pair to form a "bracket" giving us an inner product:

<math>\left\langle\varphi|\psi\right\rangle = \left\langle\psi,\varphi\right\rangle</math>

The notation is deceptively simple. The elegant nature of the Dirac Bracket Notation allows physicists to treat linear functionals represented as bras in a very intuitive fashion (they preserve nearly all of the familiar algebraic properties of numbers except commutativity). Computations of inner products are naturally suggested, and the problem is not bogged down in excessive notation -- it is essentially distilled down to its algebraic content alone.

== Othogonality of Bras and Kets ==

Because the bracket represents an inner product, certain concepts from [[linear algebra]] will continue to play a role. One is that of [[orthogonality]]. By using the [[Gram-Schmidt Process]], and set of linearly independent kets can be orthogonalized, and we may often times assume that such a procedure has been carried out. In addition, because of the probabilistic interpretation of [[wave mechanics]], we may actually take the kets to be normalized. In the Dirac Notation, the normalization condition reads:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\psi\right\rangle = 1</math>

While, by orthogonality, if <math>\psi\neq\phi</math>:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\phi\right\rangle = 0</math>

So for any two kets from a [[countable]] orthonormal set indexed by integers, we may write:

<math>\left\langle i|j\right\rangle = \delta_{i,j}</math>

Where <math>\delta_{i,j}</math> is the [[Kronecker Delta]] function. As far as discrete sets of states are concerned, the Dirac Notation has an important role to play in the representation of linear operators by matrices. Suppose we have a complete orthonormal set of kets:

<math>\beta = \left\lbrace\left|1\right\rangle, \left|2\right\rangle,\ldots,\left|n\right\rangle,\ldots\right\rbrace</math>

And a linear operator <math>Q</math>. Then the entries of the [[matrix representation]] of <math>Q</math> in the basis defined by the kets is simply:

<math>Q_{i,j} = \left\langle i\right|Q\left|j\right\rangle</math>

Likewise, if the kets are known, but a set of [[eigenvalues]] of the form:

<math>S=\left\lbrace\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_n,\ldots,\right\rbrace</math>

is also known, then a linear operator possessing those eigenvalues can be constructed. The matrix representation for a linear operator <math>Q</math> with eigenvalues from <math>S</math>:

<math>Q=\sum_{n}\lambda_n\left|n\right\rangle\left\langle n\right|</math>

The kets may also represent a [[continuous]] set of states. In this, Dirac also found it necessary to develop what is known as the [[Dirac Delta Function]]. Then, for a continuous set of complete kets indexed by the continuous variables <math>x^\prime</math> and <math>x^{\prime\prime}</math>:

<math>\left\langle x^\prime|x^{\prime\prime}\right\rangle = \delta\left(x^\prime-x^{\prime\prime}\right)</math>

This relation should be thought of as a strictly canonical for use in integration, since writing the Dirac Delta Function in the absence of an integral is somewhat dubious. However, this does allow us to consider [[wavefunctions]] in terms of the Dirac Notation. Referring to the article on the [[Dirac Delta Function]], we see that:

<math>\left\langle x|\psi\right\rangle = \int\delta\left(x^\prime-x\right)\psi\left(x^\prime\right)dx^\prime</math>

And thus that the wavefunction in position space for a state <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> can be written as:

<math>\psi\left(x\right)=\left\langle x|\psi\right\rangle</math>

Bra-ket notation

2007-02-23T07:10:51Z

Stones:

'''Dirac Notation''' is essentially the language of quantum mechanics. Although observable quantities are associated with [[linear operators]], and states are represented by vectors, the required computations can be greatly simplified through the use of the Dirac Bracket Notation.

In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, states are said to reside in a [[Hilbert Space]] <math>\mathcal{H}</math> which, by definition, has an [[inner product]], typically denoted by <math>\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle</math>. In the Dirac Notation, we use the symbol <math>\left|\psi\right\rangle</math> to represent an element of the Hilbert Space in question. This vector is called a "ket". However, by [[Reisz' Representation Theorem]], each element <math>\psi</math> of the Hilbert space also uniquely defines a [[linear functional]] which resides in the [[dual space]] in terms of the inner product, as follows:

<math>f_\psi\left(x\right) = \left\langle x,\psi\right\rangle, x\in\mathcal{H}</math>

In the Dirac Notation, the functional defined by <math>\psi</math> is instead denoted by:

<math>\left\langle\psi\right| = f_\psi\left(x\right)</math>

And in this case, <math>\left\langle\psi\right|</math> is called a "bra". When the bra is written next to a ket <math>\left|\varphi\right\rangle</math>, we understand the pair to form a "bracket" giving us an inner product:

<math>\left\langle\varphi|\psi\right\rangle = \left\langle\psi,\varphi\right\rangle</math>

The notation is deceptively simple. The elegant nature of the Dirac Bracket Notation allows physicists to treat linear functionals represented as bras in a very intuitive fashion (they preserve nearly all of the familiar algebraic properties of numbers except commutativity). Computations of inner products are naturally suggested, and the problem is not bogged down in excessive notation -- it is essentially distilled down to its algebraic content alone.

== Othogonality of Bras and Kets ==

Because the bracket represents an inner product, certain concepts from [[linear algebra]] will continue to play a role. One is that of [[orthogonality]]. By using the [[Gram-Schmidt Process]], and set of linearly independent kets can be orthogonalized, and we may often times assume that such a procedure has been carried out. In addition, because of the probabilistic interpretation of [[wave mechanics]], we may actually take the kets to be normalized. In the Dirac Notation, the normalization condition reads:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\psi\right\rangle = 1</math>

While, by orthogonality, if <math>\psi\neq\phi</math>:

<math>\left\langle\psi|\phi\right\rangle = 0</math>

So for any two kets from a [[countable]] orthonormal set indexed by integers, we may write:

<math>\left\langle i|j\right\rangle = \delta_{i,j}</math>

Where <math>\delta_{i,j}</math> is the [[Kronecker Delta]] function. As far as discrete sets of states are concerned, the Dirac Notation has an important role to play in the representation of linear operators by matrices. Suppose we have a complete orthonormal set of kets:

<math>\beta = \left\lbrace\left|1\right\rangle, \left|2\right\rangle,\ldots,\left|n\right\rangle,\ldots\right\rbrace</math>

And a linear operator <math>Q</math>. Then the entries of the [[matrix representation]] of <math>Q</math> in the basis defined by the kets is simply:

<math>Q_{i,j} = \left\langle i\right|Q\left|j\right\rangle</math>

Likewise, if the kets are known, but a set of [[eigenvalues]] of the form:

<math>S=\left\lbrace\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_n,\ldots,\right\rbrace</math>

is also known, then a linear operator possessing those eigenvalues can be constructed. The matrix representation for a linear operator <math>Q</math> with eigenvalues from <math>S</math>:

<math>Q=\sum_{n}\lambda_n\left|n\right\rangle\left\langle n\right|</math>

The kets may also represent a [[continuous]] set of states. In this, Dirac also found it necessary to develop what is known as the [[Dirac Delta Function]]. Then, for a continuous set of complete kets indexed by the continuous variables <math>x^\prime</math> and <math>x^{\prime\prime}</math>:

<math>\left\langle x^\prime|x^{\prime\prime}\right\rangle = \delta\left(x^\prime-x^{\prime\prime}\right)</math>

Quantum mechanics

2007-02-23T03:37:26Z

Stones:

Quantum mechanics consists of the revolutionary breakthrough in physics in the 1920s in understanding how participles behave inside atoms. Classical mechanics, as discovered mostly by [[Isaac Newton]], cannot remain true on the very smallest scales.

Classical mechanics would predict that an electron orbits a proton just as planets orbit the sun. Classical electromagnetism would predict that the orbiting electron would emit a time-varying electrical field just as a radio station does. But the electron would lose energy as it emits this radiation, and would orbit closer and closer to the proton, until it collapses into the proton! So a classical model cannot be correct.

Quantum mechanics discovered that an electronic behaves in many ways like a wave rather than as a particle, and the position of that wave is never precisely known until it is observed. Even when it is observed, there is an inherent uncertainty that prevents measuring both the position and the momentum simultaneously. This is known as the [[Werner Heisenberg]] uncertainty principle.

Quantum mechanics forms the basis for all computers and electronic devices today.

For an excellent discussion of quantum mechanics, see:
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/betha/qm/

See also: [[Momentum (operator)]]

Plesiosaur

2007-02-23T00:55:35Z

Stones:

Talk:H. P. Lovecraft

2007-02-22T20:23:10Z

Stones:

That was an outstanding analysis of Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, and I'd never thought of it that way. I guess I should have, since Lovecraft was vehemently opposed to liberalism in all of its forms!!! Wikipedia will probably call him a fascist or something bc tehy are so biased! =)

Patriot Bible University

2007-02-22T07:44:50Z

Stones:

Patriot Bible University is a world-renowned educational institution located in Colorado under the direction of the Hilltop Baptist Church. Although they are unaccredited, this is largely due to secularist and liberal bias in the accreditation process. Patriot Bible University departs from the "Ivory Tower" philosophy in usual academics, and will reward students with credits for life experience as a result. They also have a student body of about 400 correspondence students. [[Kent Hovind]], PHD, is one of their graduates. Kent Hovind is well known for his anti-tax activism and his discovery of a [[plesiosaur]] near Japan, and his education at Patriot Bible University is thought to have been a major factor in both regards.
[[image:PatriotU.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[help:contents|Patriot Bible University]]]]
Students at Patriot Bible University can take courses not typically offered at a mainstream secular institution, such as: BI 402 -- Understanding the Personality of God, BI 405 -- Christian Warfare, E 212 -- Sunday School Growth, PM 111 -- Following God's Will, CM 203 -- Jail Ministry, CM 311 -- Business Management in the Local Church, and SC 701 -- Biblical Basis for Modern Science.
Students in the graduate programs have the opportunity to write dissertations and, unlike in conventional universities, those dissertations will be copyrighted by the university to help protect the students from public discourse and scrutiny.