nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Scientists Confront Creationism

Scientists Confront Creationism is a collection of essays pertaining to creation science, published in 1984 by Norton Paperbacks.Scientists Confront Creationism, edited by Laurie R. Godfrey (1984). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393301540. This is one of the first books to directly attack the arguments offered by creation science, rather than just discussing the veracity of evolution itself. 
==Contributors==
*George O. Abell Ph.D. astronomy: on the age of the Earth and creationists' common mischaracterization of the reliability of radiometric dating.
*C. Loring Brace Ph.D. anthropology: dismisses the idea that humans are "new" (like 6,000 years new) to the planet by providing mounds of anthropological evidence of civilizations older than 6,000 years.
*Stephen G. Brush Ph.D. theoretical physics
*John R. Cole Ph.D. anthropology
*Joel L. Cracraft Ph.D. biology
*Russell F. Doolittle Ph.D. chemistry: on debunking the "probability" argument.
*Frederick Edwords: administrator of the American Humanist Association.
*Laurie R. Godfrey Ph.D. anthropology: specifically addresses the creationist claim that gaps in the fossil records undermine evolution.
*Stephen J. Gould Ph.D. professor of geology: does what Gould does best: eviscerate creationist lies.
*Thomas H. Jukes Ph.D.: biochemistry on the then-new molecular evidence for evolution.
*Alice B. Kehoe professor of anthropology and expert on the cultures of pre-Columbian North Americans.
*John W. Patterson M.S. mining engineering: explains and debunks the chronic bad habit of creationists using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution.
*David M. Raup Ph.D. paleontology: retired department head of the University of Chicago Department of Geophysical Sciences and curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, specifically debunks "Flood geology".
*Robert J. Schadewald: freelance science writer.
*Steven D. Schafersman Ph.D. geology: debunks the common creationist canard that "evolution is based on unproven preconceptions" that lead to confirmation bias and flawed conclusions.
A new edition of the book with different chapters was published in 2008 to confront intelligent design.Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond, edited by Andrew J. Petto & Laurie R. Godfrey (editors) (2008). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393330737.
==External links==
*Google books
*Website of the American Humanist Association.
==References==
Category:Science
Category:Creationism
Scoop

In science, scooping is when one person publishes the scientific results that someone else had been working towards. Once the relevant discovery has already been claimed, the person who was originally (or concurrently) investing work or funds into a project will be unable to publish their own work and add to their curriculum vitae. 
In most cases, scientists are presumably scooped because several groups have been working unknowingly or in open rivalry on the same problem. In extreme cases, it is the result of data theft. Scooping can become an issue in the peer review process. Strategies to avoid scooping are either a partitioning of a scientific field, where colleagues consciously do not stray into "territory" occupied by others, or a direct cooperation between colleagues interested in the same topic.
In the end, if the results are valid, the main problem with scooping is that some other person's name gets attached to the work instead of your own. In addition, large scale scooping (of the non-plagiarist variety) results in multiple teams of scientists spending resources which are ultimately wasted when one of them comes to a conclusion, decreasing the net productivity of science as a whole.
An advantage though is that when two research teams independently come to the same conclusion, possibly with different methodology, it increases the confidence in the conclusion. An example is Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace came up with the idea of natural selection first, though Darwin had been working toward the idea for 20 years. Darwin had his and Wallace's papers published simultaneously. Darwin published much more extensively than Wallace however, and it is he rather than Wallace who is almost synonymous with evolution.
==See also==
*Plagiarism
*Reproducibility
*Multiple discovery
Category:Science
Scooter Libby

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was formerly Dick "Dick" Cheney's chief of staff. He was convicted for making false statements to the FBI and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame AffairLibby Found Guilty in CIA Leak Case, having been sentenced on June 5, 2007 to thirty months in prison and fined $250,000. 
However, Scooter Libby, a fine honest American hero and patriot, who was "doing a great job", was surprisingly not pardoned by George W. Bush just before he left office. Bush had previously commuted Libby's prison sentence, although he didn't pardon the guilty verdict.
Some left-wing nutjobs theorize that Libby was acting in concert with Cheney, Bush, and Karl Rove when he leaked Ms. Plame's identity to a reporter, and possibly when he made false statements. 
Some right-wing nutjobs think that his "perjury" was an act of supreme patriotism, falling on his sword because of his loyalty to his superiors, in a cause both just and true. There are shades of Ollie North here.
Unsurprisingly, his act of patriotic perjury false statements was rewarded by then-President Bush. Bush apparently felt that any guy with the name "Scooter" has probably suffered enough in prison. The final nail was when then-President Donald Trump finally pardoned him for his crimes.
==Dual allegiances==
During Middle East peace talks circa 2007-09, in which the United Kingdom and the United States were involved, the former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said of Libby: "It’s a toss-up whether [Libby] is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day."The Truth about Oil and the Iraq War, 15 Years Later
==See also==
*Chickenhawks
==References==
Category:Bush administration
Category:Chickenhawks
Category:Conspiracy theories
Category:Convicted felons
Category:Criminals
Category:Lawyers
Category:Living people
Category:United States politicians
Scott Huse

Scott M. Huse is a creationist who authored the book The Collapse of Evolution, which has gone through several editions and is still in print.Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Books, 1983; most recent edition 1997
The book is a haphazard compilation of just about every bad argument for creationism and then some. The usual PRATTle is pratted out for our edification (evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; there are no transitional fossils; radiometric dating cannot be trusted, ad nauseam).
It is riddled with factual errors. For example:
* Claims that according to evolutionary theory, humans descended from birds
* Also claims that evolutionists believe the duck-billed platypus is the evolutionary link between birds and mammalsSee Jim Foley: "Creationism and the Platypus", talk.origins FAQ for a refutation
* Claims that human and dinosaur fossils have been found alongside each other, and this disproves evolution
* Cites a scientist who won the 1971 Nobel Prize in physicshttp://nobelprizes.com/nobel/physics/1971a.html as "winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science"
It includes an appendix titled "Scientific Facts that Prove Evolution." The page is blank.
==References==
Category:Christians
Category:Living people
Category:Pseudoscience promoters
Scrying

Scrying is the practice of looking into a reflective surface (such as a crystal ball, mirror or the surface of a liquid) in order to see visions of events that happened in the past or will happen in the future (or are currently happening somewhere else), usually as some kind of divination, magic, or religious ritual. The most common example is the stereotypical fortune-teller's crystal ball, but depending on how much you stretch the definition, the term may also cover such things as the "spooky" children's games/superstitions involving seeing "ghosts" or "your future husband" in a mirror. Reports of seeing a large flaming eye appear to be fictional.
Nostradamus was allegedly a famous scryer, though Joseph Smith also tried his hands at it.http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Latter-Day-Saints/2005/12/Brother-Joseph.aspx
==See also==
*Clairvoyance
*Fortune-telling
==References==
Category:Crystals
Category:Magic
Category:Psychic powers
Sean Carroll

Sean Michael Carroll is an American theoretical physicist, specializing in gravitation, cosmology, and field theory. His recent research concerns quantum mechanics and cosmology on one and entropy and complexity on the other.Research. The Preposterous Universe. Accessed January 27, 2019. This is Carroll's blog. He is currently a research professor at the California Institute of Technology.Faculty. Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology. Accessed January 27. 2019. Carroll is an outspoken atheist and science popularizer. He is the author of a student-friendly textbook titled Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity aimed at beginning graduate students (and advanced undergraduates).Daniel Finley. Post-Use Review. Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. American Journal of Physics. Volume 72, Number 798. 2005. He is also known for his blog, Cosmic Variance, though other people also blog there.
He should not be confused with Sean B. Carroll, a biologist who also does excellent skeptical work.
==Publications==
* His famous textbook.
* He explains the arrow of time.
* He describes the hunt for and discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
* He introduces his philosophy of poetic naturalism.
* His research publication list, from the INSPIRE-HEP digital library.
==See also==
*Stephen Hawking
*Lawrence Krauss
*Carl Sagan
*Neil deGrasse Tyson
*Sally Ride
==External links==
*Preposterous Universe, his personal website
*Cosmic Variance, blog at Discover Magazine
*Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists
*Science and Religion are Not Compatible
*Video from his interview with Stephen Colbert
*The Case for Naturalism (video)
==References==
__NOTOC__
Category:Academia
Category:Authors
Category:Atheists
Category:Bloggers
Category:California
Category:Educators
Category:Living people
Category:Physicists
Category:Popular science
Search engine optimization

SEO, or "search engine optimization", is the process of attempting to get a specific web page to come up first when searched for on a search engine such as Google, Yahoo or Bing to name but a few. 
The sociopathic version (and generally understood meaning of the phrase) is to make a zillion generic web pages and link them all to each other (link building), spam websites that allow comments or user-made content (such as blogs, wikis etc.) with links to one's webpages, and stuff one's pages with keywords that may or may not be relevant (spamdexing).
The non-sociopathic version is basically how to write one's pages and design your site in a sensible and reasonable manner. But webmasters are more likely to hire SEO specialists if they don't phrase it as "I teach you to do your damn job properly." (Or, more generously, "I tell your boss to let you do your job properly.")
==SEO and Wikipedia==
SEO specialists frequently have a serious hate-on for Wikipedia, because it's a top five website, and the first result on most Google searches, even though Wikipedia goes to no effort to generate high rankings.Although in 2005, Wikipedia would frequently rank thirtieth after its own mirror sites on searches for text unique to it, to the point where some Wikipedians asked Google "Dudes, why are we behind our own mirrors?" It was soon after this that Google started applying serious duplicate content penalties and Wikipedia started topping every search. They just have this website and put stuff on it, that's about what it says it is, and that people want to read! Wikipedia also instructs search engines not to take into account links from it when ranking other websites, in order to reduce the effectiveness of spam.http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
==SEO scams==
When you get spam e-mail promising to get a specific website elevated to the front pages of search engines such as Google, assuming you are at all interested, ask the following question: "For what search string?" SEO scam artists, you see, may actually be able to deliver on their promise as long as the search string is quite specific or less competitive in terms of traffic volumes. The more competitive and unique search strings will require a reputable expert or company with a proven track record, but expect large projected costings in to the thousands.
==See also==
*Wiki
*Google
==References==
Category:Business
Category:Internet
Category:Spammers
Second-hand smoke

Second-hand smoke is tobacco smoke blown into the air by a smoker and inhaled, indirectly, by a non-smoker.
Although direct smoking is more harmful, the claim that second-hand smoke is not damaging is just complete bullshit. At the end of the day, what matters is the inhaling of smoke, which is what harms you, regardless of whether you're exposed to it actively or passively.
== Some people who say that second-hand smoke causes serious health problems ==
* The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)IARC Monograph 100E
*WHO but what would they know, and who are they to know anything about it?
*The U.S. EPA, as shown here, but they're a bunch of eco-nuts
*U.S. National Institutes of Health
*Centers for Disease Control
*United States Surgeon General
*U.S. National Cancer Institute
*American medical association
*American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
*American Academy of pediatrics
*The BMJ but they're in the pay of Big Pharma
*The European Commission Public Health Section , and we all know where Hitler came from.
*The City of San Rafael, California, even when it's not second hand.
*The British Medical Association
== Some people who deny that second-hand smoke causes serious health problems ==
*The Tobacco Industry (although they internally acknowledge the risk)
*Frederick Seitz
*Michael Fumento
*S. Fred Singer
*Steve Milloy
*Some researchers at via the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
*Penn Jillette, though he later admitted he was wrong
*Adam Carolla
*Musician Joe Jackson (also argues that smoking in general is not really that harmful):
He swears he's not making it up, so it must be true! And since bicycle accidents also kill people, there's not really a problem anyway?
In addition, it should be pointed out that wearing a bra does not cause cancer, although, to be on the safe side, it is recommended that females (specifically those aged 18 to 40) do not wear any upper-body garments. You can never be too safe, right?
==External links==
* Blowing smoke over secondhand smoke on the Respectful Insolence blog
*The science of public smoking bans by Steven Novella on neurologica blog
==References==
Category:Medicine
Category:Denialism
Category:Human carcinogens
Second Bill of Rights

The Second Bill of Rights, alternately known as the Economic Bill of Rights, was a proposed legislative effort by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to establish an expected responsibility of the federal government to ensure eight rights were met (though the form those rights were taking did not involve Constitutional amendments). With the US jolted out of the Great Depression by World War II, Roosevelt outlined these in his second-last State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, but never proposed any legislation meant to address them due to an untimely death.
 		 	
Obviously, it went nowhere since no Congressman decided to pick-up the torch.
==The rights in question==
==Legacy==
Although the Second Bill of Rights is widely forgotten in American history, it still holds influence on an international scale. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt managed to sneak a couple of them in when drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid Can it make a comeback?The Obamacare saga might provide us with an answer.
In one of his better moments, Michael Moore managed to find the only footage of the address while filming Capitalism: A Love Story in 2008.And can be seen on YouTube! FDR was suffering from the flu at the time and delivered the SOTU
via radio at the White House instead.
It also raises the question: what would the US look like now if the bill came to fruition in the 1940s?
==See also==
*Welfare state
*Four Freedoms
*Nostalgia
==References==
Category:United States history
Category:United States politics
Category:Human rights
Category:Rights
Second Coming

The Second Coming refers to the return of Jesus to Earth after having been crucified roughly two thousand years ago.
==Long delay==
The single biggest question concerning the Second Coming is "what the fuck's taking so long?" The earliest Christians believed that Jesus' second coming was imminent, a view that seems to have been held by Jesus himself: in the Bible he tells a group of listeners that they will still be alive when the event takes place.See and . Paul also seems to think that this will take place when some of his current followers (and himself) are still alive.
Some Christians argue that Jesus had limited knowledge in his human form and screwed up. This runs contrary to the widespread Christian belief that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. This also leads to another problem: how many of Jesus' teachings are in error? Complex attempts at apologetics have tried to explain this failed prophecy,[http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm Did Jesus Wrongly Predict a First
Century Return in Matthew 24:34?] however, using Occam's Razor, the simplest and most plausible explanation is that Jesus or whomever wrote that account predicted something that never happened. Certainly the early disciples expected Jesus to return during their lifetimes and Jesus was either not omniscient and overlooked this misunderstanding or knowingly deceived his own disciples. Others argue that when Jesus said "Kingdom" he was actually talking about the Transfiguration instead.http://www.bible-studys.org/Bible%20Books/Mark/Mark%20Chapter%209.html Even so, it's scripturally irresponsible to suggest he didn't really mean what he said.
==Later interpretations==
Second Peter (written many years after Paul's epistles) addresses the issue by saying a thousand years to God is but a day to him. By this logic, this millennium is the third day since the crucifixion. We're still waiting. Although this reasoning has led some literalists to assume that the Universe was created over the course of only 6,000 years.
==Failed predictions==
Some preachers have made startling predictions regarding the second coming. Some notable examples include William Miller's great disappointment of 1844,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLuju8Tfjk the Jehovah's Witnesses prediction of 1914, and Harold Camping's most recent prediction on May 21, 2011.
===List of people who claim(ed) to be the second coming===
*AJ Miller
*Jose Luis De Jesus
*"Reverend" Sun Myung Moon
===List of people who denied being the second coming, despite people saying otherwise===
*Haile Selassie
==See also==
*Book of Revelation
*Last Judgement
*Messiah
*Millennialism
*Predictions of the end of the world
*Rapture
==References==
Category:Jesus
Category:Christian mythology
Second Epistle of John

The Second Epistle of John is a Really Short Book, just like 3 John. Nobody is quite sure why these two personal letters were included in the Bible. At least, unlike 3 John, 2 John does contain about two paragraphs of Christian doctrine. One tells you, gentle reader, that the definition of love is to walk in His commandments. Another tells you how to identify the Antichrist and all false teachers, and not to welcome anyone who does not believe into your house.
2 John and 3 John are stubs. They are probably the stubbiest books of the Bible.
The Second Epistle of John has fewer verses than any other book in the Bible, and almost as few words as his Third Epistle. Unlike 3 John, this epistle is not addressed to a single individual despite appearances. When John (the "elder") greets the "elect lady" he is not addressing a literal woman but a certain church. This is supported by the final verse, which says, The children of thy elect sister greet thee. In Revelation 12:17 John uses the imagery of a woman and her children to paint the Church. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
There is a theory that the elect lady is actually Mary the mother of Jesus, who was given by Christ himself into John's keeping at the foot of the cross. If John needed to speak to her, then, it would have been in person rather than with a formal letter, and since she would be living in his own house, or at least in a nearby household that was maintained by John, he would hardly need to tell her in a letter to refuse admittance to false teachers as he does in verses ten and eleven when he commands, If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
In verse eight he says, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward." This reveals that the "elect lady" is a plurality rather than a single person, and also that this plurality should attend to their own righteousness that they keep their crown in heaven. Of all the persons in the world, one would think that the mother of Jesus would not have to worry about her reward in heaven.
Second John also differs from 3 John in that it actually contains doctrine. Docetism and Gnosticism had crept into the church in the latter half of the First Century. Some said that Jesus never incarnated, but only had the appearance of flesh, because they were scandalized that Divinity would soil itself by associating so closely with mere flesh. Others said that Christ was raised as a spirit only, and did not experience a bodily resurrection. John made a point of addressing these issues in his first two epistles and in his Gospel.
==See also==
*RationalWiki:Annotated Bible/2 John
Category:New Testament
Category:General Epistles
Second Epistle of Peter

The Second Epistle of Peter is an epistle in the New Testament traditionally attributed to the Peter the Apostle, but modern scholars date the work to approximately 125 CE, some sixty years after the alleged crucifixion of Peter, thus making it perhaps the last book of the New Testament in chronological order of authorship. One of the issues addressed by the letter is the apparent delay of the second coming of the Lord Jesus. This would not have been a concern in 64-67 CE when Peter was according to tradition executed. Still by the early 2nd century it was becoming apparent that Jesus was wrong when he said, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." () It also appears to contain several references or echoes of the Epistle of Jude, which is dated 70 - 90 CE, and it may contain references to 2nd century Gnostic ideas, pushing it even later. Resemblances to Jude have also led to a theory by bishop that 2 Peter was written by the same person as Jude.Who Wrote 2 Peter?, John Piper, Desiring God Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea both expressed reservations, although the Petrine origin was widely accepted by the 3rd century.Intro to 2 Peter, Biblica: International Bible Society
It also reserves the power to interpret the scriptures to the Apostles and asserts that scripture is not to be subject to private interpretation. So in Protestant churches they tend to skip over this book a lot.
==See also==
*RationalWiki:Annotated Bible/2 Peter
==References==
Category:New Testament
Category:General Epistles