Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2007-10-14T04:11:46Z

Token: /* Removed paragraph */

Amongst pro-evolution scientists Feduccia's research is considered to be completely disproven. Referencing his research without mentioning the dozens of papers that refute it makes the conservapedia appear biased and/or out of date. {{unsigned|token}}

== Italics ==

Folks, please. No matter what your view, it's proper scientific style to use italics. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed paragraph ==

I've removed the following paragraph because I question it's accuracy:
{{QuoteBox|More recently, CT scans of an ''Archaeopteryx'' braincase were compared to the brains of modern and more advanced fossil birds. It was demonstrated that the brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' is not like modern birds. Instead, the authors concluded that like its ankle, feet, and skull, the brain or ''Archaeopteryx'' is more like predatory dinosaurs than modern birds.}}
It referenced a paper that is not available freely on-line (it needs to be purchased), but the on-line abstract[http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q5p612262q241205/?p=657022247b19465a9506b78afc612ddd&pi=0] says the following:
{{QuoteBox|Fossils preserving traces of soft anatomy are rare in the fossil record; even rarer is evidence bearing on the size and shape of sense organs that provide us with insights into mode of life. Here, we describe unique fossil preservation of an avian brain from the Volgograd region of European Russia. The brain of this Melovatka bird is similar in shape and morphology to those of known fossil ornithurines (the lineage that includes living birds), such as the marine diving birds ''Hesperornis'' and ''Enaliornis'', but documents a new stage in avian sensory evolution: acute nocturnal vision coupled with well-developed hearing and smell, developed by the Late Cretaceous (ca 90Myr ago). This fossil also provides insights into previous ‘bird-like’ brain reconstructions for the most basal avian ''Archaeopteryx''—reduction of olfactory lobes (sense of smell) and enlargement of the hindbrain (cerebellum) occurred subsequent to ''Archaeopteryx'' in avian evolution, closer to the ornithurine lineage that comprises living birds. The Melovatka bird also suggests that brain enlargement in early avians was not correlated with the evolution of powered flight.}}
That suggests to me that, contrary to the paragraph removed from the article, CT scans were done of a different bird, not of ''Archaeopteryx''.

If someone has access to the full paper and can confirm that the paragraph is accurate, it can go back in.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' had already been CT scanned, see here:http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/02oc_issues/oc020702/oc_brain.html. ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain was not like modern birds, so it was harder to interpret; the new paper scanned an intermediate bird's fossil skull, which greatly helped paleontologists understand the orginal CT scan of ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain. It was not like that of modern birds, it is more like a ''Velociraptor'' or oviraptorid in organization.

When the first paper came out the press carried the headlines "Archaeopteryx has bird-like brain" because the orignal study onlyused an alligator, and Allosaurus (a meat-eating dinosaur not very close to birds) and a modern bird. When maniraptoran dinosaurs and other extint birds were examined, it became clear that Archaeopteryx had a brain that is sort of birdlike, but no more so than Velociraptor and it's other close cousins.

If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2007-10-14T04:08:50Z

Token:

Amongst pro-evolution scientists Feduccia's research is considered to be completely disproven. Referencing his research without mentioning the dozens of papers that refute it makes the conservapedia appear biased and/or out of date. {{unsigned|token}}

== Italics ==

Folks, please. No matter what your view, it's proper scientific style to use italics. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed paragraph ==

I've removed the following paragraph because I question it's accuracy:
{{QuoteBox|More recently, CT scans of an ''Archaeopteryx'' braincase were compared to the brains of modern and more advanced fossil birds. It was demonstrated that the brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' is not like modern birds. Instead, the authors concluded that like its ankle, feet, and skull, the brain or ''Archaeopteryx'' is more like predatory dinosaurs than modern birds.}}
It referenced a paper that is not available freely on-line (it needs to be purchased), but the on-line abstract[http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q5p612262q241205/?p=657022247b19465a9506b78afc612ddd&pi=0] says the following:
{{QuoteBox|Fossils preserving traces of soft anatomy are rare in the fossil record; even rarer is evidence bearing on the size and shape of sense organs that provide us with insights into mode of life. Here, we describe unique fossil preservation of an avian brain from the Volgograd region of European Russia. The brain of this Melovatka bird is similar in shape and morphology to those of known fossil ornithurines (the lineage that includes living birds), such as the marine diving birds ''Hesperornis'' and ''Enaliornis'', but documents a new stage in avian sensory evolution: acute nocturnal vision coupled with well-developed hearing and smell, developed by the Late Cretaceous (ca 90Myr ago). This fossil also provides insights into previous ‘bird-like’ brain reconstructions for the most basal avian ''Archaeopteryx''—reduction of olfactory lobes (sense of smell) and enlargement of the hindbrain (cerebellum) occurred subsequent to ''Archaeopteryx'' in avian evolution, closer to the ornithurine lineage that comprises living birds. The Melovatka bird also suggests that brain enlargement in early avians was not correlated with the evolution of powered flight.}}
That suggests to me that, contrary to the paragraph removed from the article, CT scans were done of a different bird, not of ''Archaeopteryx''.

If someone has access to the full paper and can confirm that the paragraph is accurate, it can go back in.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' had already been CT scanned, see here:http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/02oc_issues/oc020702/oc_brain.html. ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain was not like modern birds, so it was harder to interpret; the new paper scanned an intermediate bird's fossil skull, which greatly helped paleontologists understand the orginal CT scan of ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain. It was not like that of modern birds, it is more like a ''Velociraptor'' or oviraptorid in organization.

If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.

Archaeopteryx

2007-04-17T21:32:57Z

Token:

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|thumbnail|right|0px|Bird, or dinosaur?]]

'''''Archaeopteryx''''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]] including teeth and incomplete evolution of the wing structure, making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the ''Archaeopteryx'' as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of Creationist anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that ''Archaeopteryx'' was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in ''Science'' magazine arguing that the ''Archaeopteryx'' had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most evolution scientists agree that the flight feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," ''Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,'' 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of ''Archaeopteryx'' were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a Christian publication stated that the brain of an ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The article argued that the fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

Many of these arguements were recently refuted when CT scans of an Archaeopteryx braincase was compared to the rbains of modern and more advanced fossil birds. It was demonstrated that the brain of Archaeopteryx is not like modern birds. Instead, the authors concluded that like its ankle, feet, and skull, the brain or Archaeopteryx is more like predatory dinosaurs than modern birds. <ref> Kurochkin, et al. "A fossil brain from the Cretaceous of European Russia and avian sensory evolution," The Royal Society Biology Letters, http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(ovrnzmfyck1pbxfhjrjtxxeo)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,33;journal,1,11;linkingpublicationresults,1:110824,1 </ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D., F.M.
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp Archaeopteryx] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/321/ As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly] by [[Duane Gish]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Refuting Evolution, Bird evolution?] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D., F.M.
*[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows]

==References==
<references/>

Christianity

2007-04-11T15:42:19Z

Token: /* Christianity and Paganism */

Christianity is a religion that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, as described in the books of the New Testament. It is currently the world's largest religion, with over two billion members. Christians frequently hold that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, the Son of God, the Messiah foretold by Jewish prophets, and many also beleive that Jesus is the world's only hope for salvation. Many Christians try to convert others (proselytize), usually by preaching. It is widely held by christians that salvation is conditional on accepting jesus christ in some form, while others hold to a universal salvation. It is also widely accepted by christians that God exists as a trinity, while others hold to a unitarian belief.

== Salvation ==

Many Christians believe that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). There are many theological opinions about how this takes place. Christians often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably, and are highly popular amongst Evangelical congregations. Consequently, Catholics and other Christians prefer using other terms in order to emphasize theological differences between views of salvation.

Born again believers are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. Others believe that salvation is irrevocable or even universal and unconditional.

== Christian beliefs about God ==

As a monotheistic faith [[God]] is the centre of Christianity. There are many key attributes to God. Amoung them would be his strength. As it says in the Book of Numbers Chapter 23 Verse 22 "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." Or, depending on the translation a wild fox. "God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox"<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023%20;&version=9;</ref>.

God is also [[omnipotent]], and all knowing. God sees all, hears all, and knows all. Using his unicorn like strength God can destroy nations, as seen in Numbers 24 8 "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2024%20;&version=9;</ref>

== Evangelism ==

In what Christians sometimes call the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples. The importance of preaching is later emphasized in the New Testament (Romans 10:14). Christians consequently spend a great deal of energy and money in evangelistic efforts. It should be noted, however, that Jesus Christ said it was the Holy Spirit, not people, who was sent to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness (John 16:8). Also, Christian leaders after him credited God, not people, with the growth and maturity of the Church (1 Corinthians 3:5-7). In other words, Christians are instructed to tell others about Jesus, but only God can make a change in the heart (John 6:45).

== Christian beliefs ==

Church leaders, theologians and scholars over two millennia have struggled to provide a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the Nicene-constantinopolitan Creed below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations disagree on many points of doctrine. According to an online Harris poll from 2003[1] 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicene-Cconstantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the Apostle's Creed, Athanasian Creed.

== Christian moral teaching ==

The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-39; Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the Apostle Paul addressed such controversies as circumcision (Romans 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to pagan deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." The latter characterizes love, saying "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

== Christians and politics ==

Christians have exerted themselves in the political arena for nearly two thousand years. But one should remember that Jesus Christ was neither a political activist nor a political philosopher. His only directly political statement is found in Mark 12:14-17, where in the discussion of whether to pay taxes, he said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Most Christians take this saying to mean that one ought to honor their authorities with the appropriate respect and service, an attitude reflected elsewhere in the New Testament (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:12-14, 17). Various interpretations of this principle have been practiced since Christ.

In America, many Christians feel it is not only their constitutional right, but a religious duty to participate in the active democracy. Some feel they have a moral obligation to influence American politics and society in order that they exemplify more Christian ideals. Christian political advocacy groups such as the Christian Coalition work toward this end. These tend to favor more hot button issues like abortion, homosexuality, adolescent sex and the theory of evolution, and have come to be associated with the political right wing, the Republican Party in particular.

Some Christians have criticized these advocacy groups for not pursuing moral issues they feel are equally important. Examples include poverty (Luke 18:22), judicial equality (Exodus 23:6; Deuteronomy 10:18), animal rights (Proverbs 12:10), and the environment (Genesis 1:28-30). Prominent exponents of secular humanism, but also moderate Christians, tend to characterize Christian conservatives' stance on sexual morality, gender equality, and the teaching of evolution as intractable, prejudicial and sometimes, with the exception of evolution, even as immoral. This has lead to what many see as a national conflict of values.

Because of these and other such disputes, it is vitally important to stress that many devout practicing Christians are not politically conservative, and that Christ never personally endorsed any particular brand of political thinking.

==Christianity and Paganism==
There are many links between Christianity and paganism. For example, many of the holidays, such as Christmas or Easter, take place during pagan celebrations. Chrismas falls near the winter solstice, a time of great celebration, and Easter takes place around the beginning of spring, the timing of fertility celebrations for over four millenia.

== See also ==

*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Catholic Church]] (the original Christian Church)
*[[Roman Catholic Church]] (Western branch of the Catholic Church)
*[[Orthodox Church]] (Eastern branch of the Catholic Church)
*[[Protestant]]
*[[Anglican]]
*[[Episcopal Church]] (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
*[[Presbyterian]]
*[[Baptist]]
*[[Methodist]]
*[[Mennonite]]
*[[Amish]]
*[[Lutheran]]
*[[Evangelical Christians]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Fundamentalist Christians]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Islam]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Islam

2007-04-11T15:37:53Z

Token: /* There is still misleading information in here */

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a seperate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

Talk:Islam

2007-04-11T15:36:48Z

Token: There is still misleading information in here

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a seperate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (and citing an interview of on person is not good evidence!), be both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

User talk:Token

2007-03-16T21:19:57Z

Token:

I'm mostly concerned with the science in Conservapedia. Too many of the fossil pages (for example) quote papers that are either decades out of date, or have been repeatedly refuted. Not being more informed about the science will make conservapedia into the laughing-stock that some in the media claim it is.

Archaeopteryx

2007-03-16T21:17:09Z

Token: added to word "many" before "reptiles", because snakes have kinetic skulls as well

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|right|Archaeopteryx fossil]]

'''Archaeopteryx''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]] including teeth and incomplete evolution of the wing structure, making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of Creationist anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most Darwinist scientists agree that the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of Archaeopteryx were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a Christian publication stated that the brain of an Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The artilce argued that the fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html

Islam

2007-03-15T17:23:22Z

Token: "Allah" is not a proper name, but "God" in Arabic

'''Islam''' is [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religion of Abraham based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]]. Islam has grown to be the second largest and fastest growing religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers. The word "Islam" means "submission", to God. The followers of Islam are called [[Muslim|Muslims]] or, less commonly, Moslems. Muslims practice monotheism, believing Muhammad to be God's last and greatest prophet. Muslims live by the Qu'ran, which they consider to be the pure and holy word of Allah (which is "God" in Arabic). Muslims wash their hands before reading the book, which is considered complete and perfect only in the original Arabic, and burn old copies instead of throwing them away. Muslims follow the five pillars of Islam.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Mecca, the holy city of the Muslims]]

===Five Pillars of Islam===

*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. The English translation is "''There is none worthy of worship except the God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''"

*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Pages from the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Christianity==

While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or that he was crucified, they consider him to be one of God's most important prophets. However, the Qu'ran warns against worshipping Jesus, for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that Christians will burn in Hell: “Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ He that worships
other deities besides God, God will deny paradise, and the Fire shall be his home. None shallhelp the evil-doers.
Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is one of three.’ There is but one God. If they do not
desist from saying so, they shall be sternly punished.” (5:71-73)

Christians, on the other hand, believe that Muslim practices violate the first commandment, for which the traditional punishment is death by stoning:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me." (Deuteronomy 5:7)

==Islam and Paganism==

Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty [[Allah|God]], a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early [[Roman Catholic Church]], system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to link Allah to a moon deity, though Allah is cited in the Koran as the God of Abraham and Isaac (Judaism and Christianity). <ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork (also practiced in Orthodox Judaism) originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the [[pig-god]] [[Jamal]]. <ref>Ibid.</ref> There is some evidence that traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism which ended after the Genisis story of Abraham and Isaac (e.g., at Uhud). <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Like all major religions, Christianity included, Islam has ill-understood and fascinating roots that modern scholarship has yet to fully plumb.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2007-03-15T16:48:07Z

Token:

Archaeopteryx

2007-03-15T16:27:47Z

Token: Changed wording to remove bias

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|right|Archaeopteryx fossil]]

'''Archaeopteryx''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]], making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of Archaeopteryx were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a publication doubting evolution explained that the Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Archaeopteryx

2007-03-15T16:26:21Z

Token: Changed portions of the article on evolutionary scientists to reflect their current consensus

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|right|Archaeopteryx fossil]]

'''Archaeopteryx''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]], making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of Archaeopteryx were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a publication doubting evolution explained that the Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

==References==
<references/>