Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T06:29:52Z

ArtWellesley: /* General McChrystal */

Ron Paul? Really? Who wants us out of all foreign soils, is vastly anti-Israel, and thinks the War on Drugs is a terrible injustice for the 'poor oppressed black people' the left of America loves to constantly hide behind? I don't think he belongs on this list! If you want my vote, Tebow all the way!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:It is actually possible to be conservative while not supporting Israel and the (pointless) Iraq war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:41, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Is it? One would think the spread of democracy and honoring our relationship with Israel were core Conservative views.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with Ezrah. Just not enough conservative positions that I can support, many things I oppose. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:53, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::Thank you, I worry many Conservatives are duped by Paul's stance on government intervention and forget how much of a sleeper agent he is for the radical left.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:56, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Democracy hasn't actually spread to Iraq, as you can see from this week's news, and I don't see how being an American conservative means you have to support a relatively new Middle Eastern state. It's not like they do much for us in exchange for all we give them, and that $4 billion a year might just be better left in the pockets of American taxpayers. As for Ron Paul I don't support him myself; his views on drugs are just crazy, among other things. The war on drugs could be a lot better run than it is being now, but you could say the same for WW2 in 1942; that's no reason to just give it up. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Ron Paul is much more of a libertarian than a conservative. The man, on many social issues, does not agree with [[conservative values]]. America needs a strong conservative, like [[Rick Perry]], who supports many of the American conservative values.--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 18:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'm sorry but Paul's support of withdrawl and ignoring terrorist threats is why Democracy has 'failed' Iraq, as it is a LEFTIST policy at its core. A Conservative understands that you can't leave work half done and expect results.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 19:02, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::No, democracy has failed in Iraq because we unwisely removed the one regime that was capable of keeping a lid on their tribalism and sectarian stupidity. Saddam was terrible for the Iraqi people but just fine for us. Now we've basically handed all Iraq's resources to the pro-Iranian Shia and the communist Kurdish rebels, while throwing away the chance to stabilise Afghanistan by putting enough resources in early enough to make a difference. No other result could have been expected, which is why many in the military and most of our allies opposed the war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:15, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I have no beef with taking Paul off the list though. GFitz is right; he's not a real conservative. I just don't think his Middle Eastern policy has anything to do with that. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:17, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::::I think Ron Paul should be on the list. No-one has a monopoly on the term "conservative". Well-meaning people can disagree on exactly what actions are termed conservative or not. He should at least be in the running for the award, even if some people don't believe he has the right position on some issues. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::I think Dmitri Medvedev definitely SHOULDN'T be. Never mind that he's Putin's stooge; he leads a country that's one step away from a totalitarian state, protects Iran from sanctions and supplies advanced weapons to China. Just because he's tightened the law on advertising abortions - and that's ALL he's done; actual abortion law hasn't been tightened at all - doesn't make him conservative. I think some people around here really need to get some perspective. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 08:44, 31 December 2011 (EST)

-Trump? Really? Are we looking for the conservative of the year or just who said the meanest things about Obama that we like? Trump is far from Conservative. Governor John Kasich for 'honoring a basketball player'? Seriously? Is this a joke? Why not just put pro-wrestler HHH on there because he has shown himself to be anti-union? Also, as a point of fact, Tebow is great but his team is not in first place.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 13:03, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:It doesn't say that Tebow's team is in first place now. It says -- correctly -- that Tebow took his team from last to first place.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 31 December 2011 (EST)
-Tim's team is not in first place, it's an objective lie to say he 'took' them to first place.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:15, 1 January 2012 (EST)
== Pink drivers' license ==

Maybe I'm dumb or something, but how is bitching about the color of a license conservative? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:Why did the media complain about Kasich's criticism?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::Maybe because it didn't make any sense. What's wrong with a pink license? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:41, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Wait What? ==

So wait what, the winner is someone who increased spending and only got on the news for honoring a sports guy and pink IDs for some reason?!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:Yeah, I asked about the pink license thing too. I mean what's the big deal about that? I don't care how liberal the media were, they were right; the guy was just bitching about the COLOR of a piece of paper. Like the world doesn't have worse problems? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== General McChrystal ==

I'm not impressed that I tried to add an outstanding American officer to this list and his name was deleted, while Shockofgod - who's basically an idiot - was allowed to remain. On what grounds is Gen. McChrystal less worthy than Shock or Nephilimfree? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)

-I'd love to know why this man was removed and random CP users were kept on in pure back-slapping ego.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:38, 1 January 2012 (EST)
::Nobody's allowed to criticise Shockofgod here because he's one of the Question Evolution! campaign's two supporters. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 01:14, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:General McChrystal was fired months '''''before''''' 2011, and was not known to be a [[conservative]]. He ended up teaching a course at a [[liberal]] college.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 1 January 2012 (EST)
::He still existed in 2011 and he's still a conservative. I served under him and there's no way he's a liberal. He deserves recognition a lot more than someone who wants to waste taxpayers' money by changing a few million driving licences just cause he doesn't like the color. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 01:13, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:::And if he's teaching at a liberal college that's excellent; he can tell those students a few things. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 01:16, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to see any quotes by General McChrystal which are [[conservative]], or any published claims that he is somehow a conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Do you only recognise quotes, or do his background and actions count? His brother is a retired full-bird Colonel and a Christian minister with the Assemblies of God. General McChrystal himself prayed twice a day on operations and also led his staff in prayer most days. He pushed hard for action against terrorists and commanded the operation that killed al Zarqawi. Even those SAS maniacs like him. Of course maybe killing terrorists isn't as conservative as hating pink paper, in which case sure, spit on my General. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 01:29, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T06:16:56Z

ArtWellesley: /* General McChrystal */

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T06:14:12Z

ArtWellesley: /* General McChrystal */

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T06:13:04Z

ArtWellesley: /* General McChrystal */

Ron Paul? Really? Who wants us out of all foreign soils, is vastly anti-Israel, and thinks the War on Drugs is a terrible injustice for the 'poor oppressed black people' the left of America loves to constantly hide behind? I don't think he belongs on this list! If you want my vote, Tebow all the way!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:It is actually possible to be conservative while not supporting Israel and the (pointless) Iraq war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:41, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Is it? One would think the spread of democracy and honoring our relationship with Israel were core Conservative views.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with Ezrah. Just not enough conservative positions that I can support, many things I oppose. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:53, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::Thank you, I worry many Conservatives are duped by Paul's stance on government intervention and forget how much of a sleeper agent he is for the radical left.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:56, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Democracy hasn't actually spread to Iraq, as you can see from this week's news, and I don't see how being an American conservative means you have to support a relatively new Middle Eastern state. It's not like they do much for us in exchange for all we give them, and that $4 billion a year might just be better left in the pockets of American taxpayers. As for Ron Paul I don't support him myself; his views on drugs are just crazy, among other things. The war on drugs could be a lot better run than it is being now, but you could say the same for WW2 in 1942; that's no reason to just give it up. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Ron Paul is much more of a libertarian than a conservative. The man, on many social issues, does not agree with [[conservative values]]. America needs a strong conservative, like [[Rick Perry]], who supports many of the American conservative values.--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 18:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'm sorry but Paul's support of withdrawl and ignoring terrorist threats is why Democracy has 'failed' Iraq, as it is a LEFTIST policy at its core. A Conservative understands that you can't leave work half done and expect results.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 19:02, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::No, democracy has failed in Iraq because we unwisely removed the one regime that was capable of keeping a lid on their tribalism and sectarian stupidity. Saddam was terrible for the Iraqi people but just fine for us. Now we've basically handed all Iraq's resources to the pro-Iranian Shia and the communist Kurdish rebels, while throwing away the chance to stabilise Afghanistan by putting enough resources in early enough to make a difference. No other result could have been expected, which is why many in the military and most of our allies opposed the war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:15, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I have no beef with taking Paul off the list though. GFitz is right; he's not a real conservative. I just don't think his Middle Eastern policy has anything to do with that. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:17, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::::I think Ron Paul should be on the list. No-one has a monopoly on the term "conservative". Well-meaning people can disagree on exactly what actions are termed conservative or not. He should at least be in the running for the award, even if some people don't believe he has the right position on some issues. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::I think Dmitri Medvedev definitely SHOULDN'T be. Never mind that he's Putin's stooge; he leads a country that's one step away from a totalitarian state, protects Iran from sanctions and supplies advanced weapons to China. Just because he's tightened the law on advertising abortions - and that's ALL he's done; actual abortion law hasn't been tightened at all - doesn't make him conservative. I think some people around here really need to get some perspective. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 08:44, 31 December 2011 (EST)

-Trump? Really? Are we looking for the conservative of the year or just who said the meanest things about Obama that we like? Trump is far from Conservative. Governor John Kasich for 'honoring a basketball player'? Seriously? Is this a joke? Why not just put pro-wrestler HHH on there because he has shown himself to be anti-union? Also, as a point of fact, Tebow is great but his team is not in first place.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 13:03, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:It doesn't say that Tebow's team is in first place now. It says -- correctly -- that Tebow took his team from last to first place.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 31 December 2011 (EST)
-Tim's team is not in first place, it's an objective lie to say he 'took' them to first place.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:15, 1 January 2012 (EST)
== Pink drivers' license ==

Maybe I'm dumb or something, but how is bitching about the color of a license conservative? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:Why did the media complain about Kasich's criticism?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::Maybe because it didn't make any sense. What's wrong with a pink license? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:41, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Wait What? ==

So wait what, the winner is someone who increased spending and only got on the news for honoring a sports guy and pink IDs for some reason?!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:Yeah, I asked about the pink license thing too. I mean what's the big deal about that? I don't care how liberal the media were, they were right; the guy was just bitching about the COLOR of a piece of paper. Like the world doesn't have worse problems? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== General McChrystal ==

I'm not impressed that I tried to add an outstanding American officer to this list and his name was deleted, while Shockofgod - who's basically an idiot - was allowed to remain. On what grounds is Gen. McChrystal less worthy than Shock or Nephilimfree? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)

-I'd love to know why this man was removed and random CP users were kept on in pure back-slapping ego.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:38, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:General McChrystal was fired months '''''before''''' 2011, and was not known to be a [[conservative]]. He ended up teaching a course at a [[liberal]] college.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 1 January 2012 (EST)
::He still existed in 2011 and he's still a conservative. I served under him and there's no way he's a liberal. He deserves recognition a lot more than someone who wants to waste taxpayers' money by changing a few million driving licences just cause he doesn't like the color. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 01:13, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T05:11:16Z

ArtWellesley: /* Wait What? */

Ron Paul? Really? Who wants us out of all foreign soils, is vastly anti-Israel, and thinks the War on Drugs is a terrible injustice for the 'poor oppressed black people' the left of America loves to constantly hide behind? I don't think he belongs on this list! If you want my vote, Tebow all the way!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:It is actually possible to be conservative while not supporting Israel and the (pointless) Iraq war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:41, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Is it? One would think the spread of democracy and honoring our relationship with Israel were core Conservative views.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with Ezrah. Just not enough conservative positions that I can support, many things I oppose. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:53, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::Thank you, I worry many Conservatives are duped by Paul's stance on government intervention and forget how much of a sleeper agent he is for the radical left.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:56, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Democracy hasn't actually spread to Iraq, as you can see from this week's news, and I don't see how being an American conservative means you have to support a relatively new Middle Eastern state. It's not like they do much for us in exchange for all we give them, and that $4 billion a year might just be better left in the pockets of American taxpayers. As for Ron Paul I don't support him myself; his views on drugs are just crazy, among other things. The war on drugs could be a lot better run than it is being now, but you could say the same for WW2 in 1942; that's no reason to just give it up. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Ron Paul is much more of a libertarian than a conservative. The man, on many social issues, does not agree with [[conservative values]]. America needs a strong conservative, like [[Rick Perry]], who supports many of the American conservative values.--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 18:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'm sorry but Paul's support of withdrawl and ignoring terrorist threats is why Democracy has 'failed' Iraq, as it is a LEFTIST policy at its core. A Conservative understands that you can't leave work half done and expect results.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 19:02, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::No, democracy has failed in Iraq because we unwisely removed the one regime that was capable of keeping a lid on their tribalism and sectarian stupidity. Saddam was terrible for the Iraqi people but just fine for us. Now we've basically handed all Iraq's resources to the pro-Iranian Shia and the communist Kurdish rebels, while throwing away the chance to stabilise Afghanistan by putting enough resources in early enough to make a difference. No other result could have been expected, which is why many in the military and most of our allies opposed the war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:15, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I have no beef with taking Paul off the list though. GFitz is right; he's not a real conservative. I just don't think his Middle Eastern policy has anything to do with that. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:17, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::::I think Ron Paul should be on the list. No-one has a monopoly on the term "conservative". Well-meaning people can disagree on exactly what actions are termed conservative or not. He should at least be in the running for the award, even if some people don't believe he has the right position on some issues. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::I think Dmitri Medvedev definitely SHOULDN'T be. Never mind that he's Putin's stooge; he leads a country that's one step away from a totalitarian state, protects Iran from sanctions and supplies advanced weapons to China. Just because he's tightened the law on advertising abortions - and that's ALL he's done; actual abortion law hasn't been tightened at all - doesn't make him conservative. I think some people around here really need to get some perspective. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 08:44, 31 December 2011 (EST)

-Trump? Really? Are we looking for the conservative of the year or just who said the meanest things about Obama that we like? Trump is far from Conservative. Governor John Kasich for 'honoring a basketball player'? Seriously? Is this a joke? Why not just put pro-wrestler HHH on there because he has shown himself to be anti-union? Also, as a point of fact, Tebow is great but his team is not in first place.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 13:03, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:It doesn't say that Tebow's team is in first place now. It says -- correctly -- that Tebow took his team from last to first place.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Pink drivers' license ==

Maybe I'm dumb or something, but how is bitching about the color of a license conservative? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:Why did the media complain about Kasich's criticism?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::Maybe because it didn't make any sense. What's wrong with a pink license? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:41, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Wait What? ==

So wait what, the winner is someone who increased spending and only got on the news for honoring a sports guy and pink IDs for some reason?!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:Yeah, I asked about the pink license thing too. I mean what's the big deal about that? I don't care how liberal the media were, they were right; the guy was just bitching about the COLOR of a piece of paper. Like the world doesn't have worse problems? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== General McChrystal ==

I'm not impressed that I tried to add an outstanding American officer to this list and his name was deleted, while Shockofgod - who's basically an idiot - was allowed to remain. On what grounds is Gen. McChrystal less worthy than Shock or Nephilimfree? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T05:09:37Z

ArtWellesley: /* General McChrystal */ new section

Ron Paul? Really? Who wants us out of all foreign soils, is vastly anti-Israel, and thinks the War on Drugs is a terrible injustice for the 'poor oppressed black people' the left of America loves to constantly hide behind? I don't think he belongs on this list! If you want my vote, Tebow all the way!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:It is actually possible to be conservative while not supporting Israel and the (pointless) Iraq war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:41, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::Is it? One would think the spread of democracy and honoring our relationship with Israel were core Conservative views.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:49, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with Ezrah. Just not enough conservative positions that I can support, many things I oppose. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:53, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::Thank you, I worry many Conservatives are duped by Paul's stance on government intervention and forget how much of a sleeper agent he is for the radical left.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 18:56, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Democracy hasn't actually spread to Iraq, as you can see from this week's news, and I don't see how being an American conservative means you have to support a relatively new Middle Eastern state. It's not like they do much for us in exchange for all we give them, and that $4 billion a year might just be better left in the pockets of American taxpayers. As for Ron Paul I don't support him myself; his views on drugs are just crazy, among other things. The war on drugs could be a lot better run than it is being now, but you could say the same for WW2 in 1942; that's no reason to just give it up. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 18:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Ron Paul is much more of a libertarian than a conservative. The man, on many social issues, does not agree with [[conservative values]]. America needs a strong conservative, like [[Rick Perry]], who supports many of the American conservative values.--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 18:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'm sorry but Paul's support of withdrawl and ignoring terrorist threats is why Democracy has 'failed' Iraq, as it is a LEFTIST policy at its core. A Conservative understands that you can't leave work half done and expect results.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 19:02, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::No, democracy has failed in Iraq because we unwisely removed the one regime that was capable of keeping a lid on their tribalism and sectarian stupidity. Saddam was terrible for the Iraqi people but just fine for us. Now we've basically handed all Iraq's resources to the pro-Iranian Shia and the communist Kurdish rebels, while throwing away the chance to stabilise Afghanistan by putting enough resources in early enough to make a difference. No other result could have been expected, which is why many in the military and most of our allies opposed the war. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:15, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I have no beef with taking Paul off the list though. GFitz is right; he's not a real conservative. I just don't think his Middle Eastern policy has anything to do with that. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:17, 30 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::::I think Ron Paul should be on the list. No-one has a monopoly on the term "conservative". Well-meaning people can disagree on exactly what actions are termed conservative or not. He should at least be in the running for the award, even if some people don't believe he has the right position on some issues. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::I think Dmitri Medvedev definitely SHOULDN'T be. Never mind that he's Putin's stooge; he leads a country that's one step away from a totalitarian state, protects Iran from sanctions and supplies advanced weapons to China. Just because he's tightened the law on advertising abortions - and that's ALL he's done; actual abortion law hasn't been tightened at all - doesn't make him conservative. I think some people around here really need to get some perspective. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 08:44, 31 December 2011 (EST)

-Trump? Really? Are we looking for the conservative of the year or just who said the meanest things about Obama that we like? Trump is far from Conservative. Governor John Kasich for 'honoring a basketball player'? Seriously? Is this a joke? Why not just put pro-wrestler HHH on there because he has shown himself to be anti-union? Also, as a point of fact, Tebow is great but his team is not in first place.--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 13:03, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:It doesn't say that Tebow's team is in first place now. It says -- correctly -- that Tebow took his team from last to first place.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Pink drivers' license ==

Maybe I'm dumb or something, but how is bitching about the color of a license conservative? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

:Why did the media complain about Kasich's criticism?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)
::Maybe because it didn't make any sense. What's wrong with a pink license? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 23:41, 31 December 2011 (EST)

== Wait What? ==

So wait what, the winner is someone who increased spending and only got on the news for honoring a sports guy and pink IDs for some reason?!--[[User:EzrahJay|EzrahJay]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== General McChrystal ==

I'm not impressed that I tried to add an outstanding American officer to this list and his name was deleted, while Shockofgod - who's basically an idiot - was allowed to remain. On what grounds is Gen. McChrystal less worthy than Shock or Nephilimfree? --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 00:09, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T04:59:57Z

ArtWellesley: Undo revision 950177 by Aschlafly (talk)Why is General McChrystal less worthy than Shockofgod? He's an outstanding American.

'''Winner will be selected at midnight tonight (New Year's Eve)''':

== Nominations ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Tentative Rank
!Name
!Achievements
!Comments
|-
|1
|Congressman [[Allen West]]
|public stance against Obama and [[Democrat]]s
|one of the few in [[Congress]] who actually speaks the truth; could be a future candidate for president
|-
|2
|Governor [[John Kasich]]
|led [[Ohio]] to enact [[conservative]] economic and [[pro-life]] legislation, and honored the star player who defeated [[LeBron James]] in the [[NBA]] finals
|criticized the pink drivers licenses issued by Ohio, and didn't back down when [[liberals]] whined about his statement
|-
|3
|[[Quarterback]] [[Tim Tebow]]
|inspiring millions with his pro-[[Christian]], [[pro-life]] attitude while taking his [[NFL]] team from last to first place
|ducked a question about whether he supports [[same-sex marriage]]
|-
|4
|Governor [[Sam Brownback]]
|signed the best set of [[pro-life]] bills in the nation into law in [[Kansas]], and has withstood [[liberal]] claptrap against him
|could be a future candidate for president
|-
|5
|Governor [[Scott Walker]]
|standing up to the government workers' unions in [[Wisconsin]]
|though [[pro-life]], Walker achieved nothing on the issue thus is vulnerable to a recall in 2012
|-
|6
|[[U.S. Senator]] [[Jim Inhofe]]
|led [[Congress]] in rejecting the [[global warming]] hoax, and agreed to debate gasbag [[Ralph Nader]] on the topic<ref>http://newsok.com/oklahoma-sen.-jim-inhofe-accepts-challenge-from-ralph-nader-to-debate-global-warming/article/3631675</ref>
|Inhofe is frequently the most [[conservative]] person in the [[U.S. Senate]]
|-
|7
|Attorney General [[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|continuing his challenge on behalf of [[Virginia]] to [[ObamaCare]] in the courts and stood up to liberals on other issues
|seemed to do more in 2010, but remains a strong potential candidate for Governor in the next election
|-
|8
|[[Russia]]n President [[Dmitry Medvedev]]
|signing "a requirement for [[abortion]] advertisers to inform women about the risks associated with the procedure, including the loss of fertility"<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/russia-passes-pro-life-law-52482/</ref> - the first [[pro-life]] law there since [[communism]]
|Despite being [[Christian]], some claim his approach is neo-Stalinist
|-
|9
|[[U.S. Senator]] [[Ron Johnson]]
|[[filibuster]]ed [[Obama]]'s liberal nominations for judgeships within the [[Seventh Circuit]], forcing Obama to withdraw them.<ref>http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/mailbag/glenn-sugameli-ron-johnson-still-blocking-ok-for-judges/article_8cab8605-2a35-540e-8f11-b123f7d772b7.html</ref>
|has failed to vote against other liberal nominations for judgeships, even when fellow [[conservatives]] vote "Nay"
|-
|10
|[[Joe Arpaio]]
|his outstanding law enforcement abilities and for being a thorn to [[Eric Holder]]'s Justice Department
|
|-
|11
|[[Nephilimfree]]
|persistent efforts to counter non-creation science on YouTube
|Arguably does more harm to the cause with outlandish claims. Admitted that he peruses escort websites. However has recently allowed uncensored comments on his videos unlike some others and doesn't hesitate to respond to challenges.
|-
|12
|[[Ron Paul]]
|did well in the [[Presidential Election 2012|presidential race]] with his principled views
|Though excellent on [[economic]] issues and pro-life, Paul supports the decriminalization of illegal drugs, and opposes a United States alliance with Israel.
|-
|13
|[[Donald Trump]]
|criticized [[Obama]] on key issues
|folded and even abandoned the [[Republican Party]] after celebrities began criticizing him
|-
|14
|[[General Stanley McChrystal]]
|A believing Christian and true conservative, forced out of the military for criticizing Obama.
|Hated by most NATO soldiers because he expected them to come up to US standards, like not drinking alcohol on operations in Afghanistan.
|-
|15
|[[Shockofgod]]
|Pinning atheists with questions they have never been able to answer. Has challenged the leading YouTube atheists and [[Penn Jillette]] to debate him, but they have declined. Shockofgod and the [[PPsimmons]] YouTube channels have promoted the [[Question evolution campaign]]. Challenged the atheist [[Thunderf00t]] to debate the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] and he declined.
|Has been criticized by atheists for simply removing (rather than responding to) more complex challenges. Only allows censored comments on videos.
|}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T04:50:21Z

ArtWellesley:

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T04:41:03Z

ArtWellesley: /* Pink drivers' license */

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T04:27:42Z

ArtWellesley: /* Pink drivers' license */ new section

Conservative of the Year 2011

2012-01-01T01:42:42Z

ArtWellesley:

'''Winner will be selected at midnight tonight (New Year's Eve)''':

== Nominations ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Tentative Rank
!Name
!Achievements
!Comments
|-
|1
|Governor [[Scott Walker]]
|standing up to the government workers' unions in [[Wisconsin]]
|though [[pro-life]], Walker achieved nothing on the issue thus is vulnerable to a recall in 2012
|-
|2
|Congressman [[Allen West]]
|public stance against Obama and [[Democrat]]s
|one of the few in [[Congress]] who actually speaks the truth; could be a future candidate for president
|-
|3
|Governor [[John Kasich]]
|led [[Ohio]] to enact [[conservative]] economic and social reforms, and honored the star player who defeated [[LeBron James]] in the [[NBA]] finals
|
|-
|4
|[[Quarterback]] [[Tim Tebow]]
|inspiring millions with his pro-[[Christian]], [[pro-life]] attitude while taking his [[NFL]] team from last to first place
|ducked a question about whether he supports [[same-sex marriage]]
|-
|5
|Governor [[Sam Brownback]]
|signed the best set of [[pro-life]] bills in the nation into law in [[Kansas]], and has withstood [[liberal]] claptrap against him
|could be a future candidate for president
|-
|6
|[[U.S. Senator]] [[Jim Inhofe]]
|led [[Congress]] in rejecting the [[global warming]] hoax, and agreed to debate gasbag [[Ralph Nader]] on the topic<ref>http://newsok.com/oklahoma-sen.-jim-inhofe-accepts-challenge-from-ralph-nader-to-debate-global-warming/article/3631675</ref>
|
|-
|7
|Attorney General [[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|continuing his challenge on behalf of [[Virginia]] to [[ObamaCare]] in the courts and stood up to liberals on other issues
|seemed to do more in 2010, but remains a strong potential candidate for Governor in the next election
|-
|8
|[[Russia]]n President [[Dmitry Medvedev]]
|signing "a requirement for [[abortion]] advertisers to inform women about the risks associated with the procedure, including the loss of fertility"<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/russia-passes-pro-life-law-52482/</ref> - the first [[pro-life]] law there since [[communism]]
|Despite being [[Christian]], some claim his approach is neo-Stalinist
|-
|9
|[[U.S. Senator]] [[Ron Johnson]]
|[[filibuster]]ed [[Obama]]'s liberal nominations for judgeships within the [[Seventh Circuit]], forcing Obama to withdraw them.<ref>http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/mailbag/glenn-sugameli-ron-johnson-still-blocking-ok-for-judges/article_8cab8605-2a35-540e-8f11-b123f7d772b7.html</ref>
|has failed to vote against other liberal nominations for judgeships, even when fellow [[conservatives]] vote "Nay"
|-
|10
|[[Joe Arpaio]]
|his outstanding law enforcement abilities and for being a thorn to [[Eric Holder]]'s Justice Department
|
|-
|11
|[[Nephilimfree]]
|persistent efforts to counter non-creation science on YouTube
|Arguably does more harm to the cause with outlandish claims. Admitted that he peruses escort websites. However allows uncensored comments on his videos unlike some others and doesn't hesitate to respond to challenges.
|-
|12
|[[Ron Paul]]
|did well in the [[Presidential Election 2012|presidential race]] with his principled views
|Though excellent on [[economic]] issues and pro-life, Paul supports the decriminalization of illegal drugs, and opposes a United States alliance with Israel.
|-
|13
|[[Donald Trump]]
|criticized [[Obama]] on key issues
|folded and even abandoned the [[Republican Party]] after celebrities began criticizing him
|-
|14
|[[Shockofgod]]
|Pinning atheists with questions they have never been able to answer.
|Has been criticized for simply removing (rather than responding to) more complex challenges. Only allows censored comments on videos.
|}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-31T20:56:15Z

ArtWellesley:

Nominations are welcome '''until 3pm ET Saturday''' for the '''Conservative of the Year''' for 2011:

== Nominations ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Name
!Achievements
!Comments
|-
|Governor [[Scott Walker]]
|standing up to the government workers' unions in [[Wisconsin]]
|though [[pro-life]], Walker achieved nothing on the issue thus is vulnerable to a recall in 2012
|-
|[[Quarterback]] [[Tim Tebow]]
|inspiring millions with his pro-[[Christian]], [[pro-life]] attitude while taking his [[NFL]] team from last to a respectable place
|ducked a question about whether he supports [[same-sex marriage]]
|-
|Congressman [[Allen West]]
|public stance against Obama and [[Democrat]]s
|
|-
|Governor [[Sam Brownback]]
|signed a series of [[pro-life]] bills into law in [[Kansas]] and withstanding [[liberal]] claptrap against him
|
|-
|Attorney General [[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|continuing his challenge on behalf of [[Virginia]] to [[ObamaCare]] in the courts and stood up to liberals on other issues
|seemed to do more in 2010
|-
|[[Russia]]n President [[Dmitry Medvedev]]
|signing "a requirement for [[abortion]] advertisers to inform women about the risks associated with the procedure, including the loss of fertility"<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/russia-passes-pro-life-law-52482/</ref> - the first [[pro-life]] law there since [[communism]]
|Despite his new ''advertising'' law is actually more of a neo-Stalinist stooge than anything resembling a conservative.
|-
|[[U.S. Senator]] [[Ron Johnson]]
|[[filibuster]]ed [[Obama]]'s liberal nominations for judgeships within the [[Seventh Circuit]], forcing Obama to withdraw them.<ref>http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/mailbag/glenn-sugameli-ron-johnson-still-blocking-ok-for-judges/article_8cab8605-2a35-540e-8f11-b123f7d772b7.html</ref>
|
|-
|[[Joe Arpaio]]
|his outstanding law enforcement abilities and for being a thorn to [[Eric Holder]]'s Justice Department
|
|-
|[[Nephilimfree]]
|persistent efforts to counter non-creation science on YouTube
|
|-
|[[U.S. Senator]] [[Jim Inhofe]]
|led [[Congress]] in rejecting the [[global warming]] hoax, and agrees to debate gasbag [[Ralph Nader]] on the topic.<ref>http://newsok.com/oklahoma-sen.-jim-inhofe-accepts-challenge-from-ralph-nader-to-debate-global-warming/article/3631675</ref>
|
|-
|Governor [[John Kasich]]
|led [[Ohio]] to enact [[conservative]] economic and social reforms, and honored the star player who defeated [[LeBron James]] in the [[NBA]] finals
|
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|did well in the [[Presidential Election 2012|presidential race]] with his principled views
|Though excellent on [[economic]] issues and pro-life, Paul supports the decriminalization of illegal drugs, and opposes a United States alliance with Israel.
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|criticized [[Obama]] on key issues
|folded and even abandoned the [[Republican Party]] after celebrities began criticizing him
|-
|[[Shockofgod]]
|Pinning atheists with questions they have never been able to answer.
|
|}

(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-31T13:44:36Z

ArtWellesley:

User talk:ArtWellesley

2011-12-31T03:02:45Z

ArtWellesley: /* Edit War */

{{welcome}}

Welcome to Conservapedia, ArtWellesley!--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 19:29, 30 December 2011 (EST)

== Edit War ==

Dont undo admins, its a commandment. Just ask them why on the talk page, or you may be blocked by someone.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 21:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:OK, I've brought it up on the talk page. However the fact that someone is an admin doesn't make them right. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 22:02, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Age of the Earth

2011-12-31T03:01:36Z

ArtWellesley: /* Decay rates */ new section

The statement that "Charles Lyell supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in Principles of Geology" seems inadequate. Did Lyell set forth a scientific theory about an Old Earth in 1830? I'm skeptical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:Lyell was a geologist who created several theories related to the geologic age of the earth, including I believe uniformitarianism, and contained in his book ''Principles of Geology''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a copy of "Principles of Geology". The table of Contents is in HTML, but the text in PDF. [http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/contents.htm] The first few chapters are about the development of ideas of the age of the earth.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

==Helium diffusion, polonium halos, C14 dating==

All of these methods give ample evidence for a young earth(C14 works best for more recent things). I was wondering if anyone wanted to write about these(If not, I can do some independent research for this article, but I'm in school right now so I can't promise anything).

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]][[user talk:RichardT|Talk]] 23:26, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
:We already briefly discuss these in [[Young Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explanation ==

The article doesn't say that individual scientists haven't been around for billions of years, it says that the scientific ''community'' hasn't been around that long. The people of God ''have'' been around for six thousand or so years, so have direct, first-hand records of the earliest days of creation. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:The age of the scientific community and what the term "scientific community" means can be debated, and that's the point - this debate and the current debate over which group has the more accurate age of the Earth shouldn't be in the overview section of the article but instead represented in the sections dealing with the controversy over the age of the Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 17:41, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

==Atheism and Old Earth Theories==

The opening section of this article currently states that “atheists ... insist that Earth is somehow 4.5 billion years old” but it implies that all atheists (or only atheists) believe the Earth is billions of years old. This is incorrect and the section should be clarified: it is the majority scientific community that assert the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of religious orientations of individuals in this community. Simply put, not all atheists believe the Earth is billions of years old and not all Christians or others with religion believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: Would you likewise object to a statement that "Republicans oppose Obama's policies"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

:: Yes, it's to general of a statement – ''conservatives'' oppose the ''liberal policies'' of the Obama administration, or it can be said that the Republican Party (leadership) opposes the Obama administration. Not all Republicans are conservative on all issues (e.g. the Log Cabin Republicans) and not all of Obama's polices are liberal (e.g. keeping Guantanamo Bay's prison open). The statement would be similar to asserting that Republicans agree on all issues (otherwise why would Republicans bother to have a presidential primary) and that the Obama administration is consistently liberal (they've done plenty of flip flopping to try and gain votes in the upcoming election). So bringing this back to the current article, the overview section (or opening section, whatever one would like to call it) should be more explicit on which groups are putting forward the Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth theories. When it comes to Old-Earth theories - "atheists" is to general of a term and insinuates that those of the scientific community that support Old-Earth theories are without religion. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Your objection would silence many useful observations. Under your view, is it wrong to say that obesity is unhealthy? There may be one case out of a million where the person is actually better off getting fatter. If that case exists, would you object to commenting about the majority?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Unfortunately, you've missed my point. What I was referring to is the need to avoid over generalizing and casting all old Earth supporters into the ranks of atheists; there is a need to rework the opening section of this article for greater clarity. To say that supporters of an old Earth are atheists is making too big of an assumption, especially if one's religion espouses an old Earth.
:::: And I hardly think your analogy of obesity and health applies to your original loaded question regarding the political persuasions of Americans: I'm sure far more than 1 in a million Democrats oppose Obama and far more than 1 in a million Republicans support Obama's more conservative polices - America's not that black & white, nor is the issue of who are the supporters of old Earth vs. young Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:44, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=6 thousand years old=

I was wondering, is there a reason why this number is written in this way? personally I would either say "6,000 years old" or "six thousand years old", but I wanted to ask for your opinions before changing it. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:42, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:No particular reason. Either of your suggested edits would be fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks, change implemented. Personally I think that little, apparently meaningless details like this improve the perceived quality of an encyclopedia. I chose 6,000 years because it's more "visually immediate" than "six thousand". --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

::You're right. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=Exact age=

I have not been able to find out an exact age. It is always referred to as "about 6,000 y.o".
Has anyone found a study calculating the exact age of the Earth ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

: No, I haven't, and wouldn't expect to find one. Dates of events far more recent than creation are in dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Tends to be anywhere from 5-10k years. Depends on if you follow ushers example and dont think there mght be some names missing from the lists of names in genesis and the gospels.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Why the removal? ==

Why was the mention of Old Earth removed? The fact of the matter is, the majority of the scientific community has accepted radiometric dating as true, and that the Earth is in fact 4 billion years old. Also, why does it matter what historic figures felt the age of the Earth to be. Isn't this an appeal to tradition? Our ancestors also believed that, prior to Christianity, the Sun and Moon were Gods. Should their opinions be held to be correct as well? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 08:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::First, must? Second, secularist/deistic fashions among scientists don't carry a lot of weight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::So if they disagree with you they are automatically inferior and their opinion matters less? That's dancing awfully close to censorship isn't it? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 09:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't see in his reply anywhere that he stated he disagreed with those ideas, and whether or not anyone does is irrelevant. Passing scientific fads never carry much weight, regardless of our personal views on the matter. (Conservative, please correct me if I misstate your views). Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 12:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all? We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism? We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::No, but you need to state where the majority of the scientific community lies and what evidence they place stock in. Most of those who are not members of the YEC (which is a minority) do not hold to the idea that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years." You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. In addition, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some errant scientific circle, but given your previously illogical pronouncement please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:As I said, since the advent of radiometric dating, the consistent concensus has been that the tests of radiometric dating have all stated that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. If you wish to question radiometric dating then fine, but you should at least mention it as a major stubmling block towards YEC. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Decay rates ==

I don't think this article should say that the assumption that decay rates have stayed constant is "implausible," for the simple reason that it isn't. I don't for a minute think it's a CORRECT assumption, but for it to be an IMPLAUSIBLE one there would have to be a reason why they COULDN'T have remained constant; there is no more reason why they couldn't have remained constant than there is one why they couldn't have changed. Unless someone can give a reason why decay rates MUST change the word "implausible" is not appropriate. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 22:01, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Age of the Earth

2011-12-31T02:58:32Z

ArtWellesley: Undo revision 949800 by Aschlafly (talk)No. It is very likely INCORRECT that decay rates have remained constant, but it's not IMPAUSIBLE.

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 10-6,000 years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and scientists who argue that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. The biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', that provides much of the scientific evidence in support of a young Earth.

The fatal flaw in Old Earth arguments is their overreliance on the assumption that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] somehow remains constant over thousands of years.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history, humans of many backgrounds viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years,<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref> such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus.<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an officiall [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young-Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], whilst not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates somehow remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- [[atheists]] insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-31T00:30:53Z

ArtWellesley: /* Third-party coverage */

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

== "Question Evolution" Link ==

Under the "Notes" section, the first link is supposed to bring the user to the Question Evolution! page on the Creation Ministries website, correct? Currently, the link is broken. It should say, "creation.com/question-evolution," whereas right now it says "creation.com/question-evIolution."

Note the "I" between "v" and "o" in "evolution." I cannot fix this link, so someone with that power may wish to do so. [[User:JHunt1487|JHunt1487]] 14:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Fixed thinks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! ==

The Bible has quite a few dates and talks about lots of old men who supposedly lived for 900 years. Using these dates and records, Christian apologist Bishop Ussher created the most commonly accepted chronology that claims that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Christian Fundamentalists still accept this date or at least a very similar one. Here are seven reasons that they are wrong!
#The Pyramids Everyone knows that they are there. Even Southern Baptist apologists can't deny their existence. So how does their very existence destroy Biblical inerrantism? Because every single one of them was built hundreds of years before the Bible says that the Flood supposedly wiped out humanity. The Great Pyramid of Khufu in Giza was built around 2550 BC according to Egyptian records. That is 200 years before the flood. Embarrassingly, God's miles high flood made no mark on the pyramids or their contents. The mummies and artifacts inside are still dry and in great shape. If there really had been enough water to cover the Earth, it would have exerted a force of at least 1.8 million pounds per square foot on the Pyramids (assuming that the water was high enough to cover the entire Earth and all the mountains as the Bible says). This amount of pressure would have completely destroyed the antiquated architecture and mummies.
::''Where did you come up with your Flood date?''
#Tree Rings Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, is an interesting and informative science that can tell us much about history. Every year, each tree creates a new growth ring. The size of this ring depends on the conditions of that year. Scientists can take cores of these trees and count the number of tree rings in order to give the age of the tree. Each year has a distinctive pattern depending on the local conditions. Amazingly, we have a species of tree, known as Bristlecone Pines, that provide a record of tree rings that extends back 11,000 years to 9,000 BC. This is an obvious problem for those that believe that the Earth was still "matter unorganized" back then. We even have a tree, known as Methuselah, that has now been alive for 4,842 years and counting as shown by its rings. That means that the tree was born in 2831 BC. This tree (and many others) kept living right on through the Flood that supposedly killed everything in 2350. The lowly Bristlecone Pine has toppled the Holy Bible simply by living when it should have died.
::''5,000 years ago is when the Flood happened, and bristlecone pines have been shown to be younger than that. Where is this 11,000 year tree-ring record you speak of?''
#Carbon Dating Radiometric dating is one of the strongest killers of Biblical literacy and one that creationists love to hate. Basically, radiometric dating measures the amount of an isotope and its decayed products are present in a given sample. It is based on the universally admitted fact that radioactive things decay at a certain rate. Through simple math, one can figure out the age of the sample. Radiometric dating is important because it proves that fossils are much older than a few thousand years old. This data shows that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years which obviously destroys the Ussher Chronology. Creationists often claim that "decay rates may have changed" or "I carbon dated my dead cat and the answer was off, so..." I have heard all kinds of silly attempts to discredit radiometric dating. The fact remains that we have used this method with not only carbon-14, but with more than 50 other isotopes to confirm the dates. Each of these 50 isotopes decays at a different rate. Yet, they all agree that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. This is important. The half-lives for isotopes range from 70*10-18 seconds for Be-8 to 2.28*1024 years for Te-128. This is a huge range of time. That means that God would have had to speed up each of the 50 isotope's half-lives by vastly different factors in order to fool us into thinking that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How ridiculous. My question is: why do creationists make insane claims about basic laws of physics in order to defend a Bronze Age myth?
::''You can believe what you want to believe, but there are major flaws based around the word "assumption" in regards to radiometric dating; too many people have too many problems with it to be reliable.'' [http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm]
#Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian Before 2250 BC and the Tower of Babel, according to Biblical mythology, the only language on the planet was Adamic. All of the other languages, including Egyptian and Sumerian, were created by the confusion of tongues. Therefore, it is devastating that we have found hundreds of examples of writing that date to a thousand years before the Tower of Babel. Egyptian writings are also powerful evidence against Biblical literalism. The first known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette which is a collection of writing that dates to 3200 BC. This writing existed 1,000 years before the Tower of Babel when the Egyptian language was supposedly created. The first examples of Sumerian Cuneiform date to 3300 BC. Obviously, two completely different languages existed long before the Tower of Babel "created" them all and neither of them was Adamic.
::''For years scholars have been stating that written language is no older than 5,000 years (the Flood date again!), and recently things began to change. Could this change have been connected with militant atheism and a hostility towards the Bible?''
#Egyptian Dynastic Records Thanks to a well-developed system of record keeping and well-preserved papyri (which oddly enough, survived the Flood), we know an amazing amount about the Egyptian dynasties of the Old Kingdom. We know the exact years that each pharoah rose to power and then was replaced beginning with the Pharoah Zanakht, who rose to power in 2649. This line continues unbroken until the Pharoah Unas (2356-2323 BC) who obviously survived the "Global Flood" in 2349. This line continues until Nemtyenmzaf (2255-2246 BC) who reigned while God was changing everyone's language. Luckily, God forgot Egypt existed and no major disruptive linguistic change occurred during those few centuries when the Tower of Babel suppposedly happened.
::''Are you stating here that Pharoah Zanakht is the first Egyptian king? And are you sure about those dates? David Rohl did some checking and found out the scholars were wrong by about 350 years.'''
#Kangaroos, Lemurs, Frogs, and Emus Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of the more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450 foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah's Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most Marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline for Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the Lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.
:''Those questions are easily answered by Genesis, and an order by God that they go to their appointed places after the Flood. After all, how did people migrate out from the Old World to the New? Did they cross land bridges? And did they take several thousand years to do it...or did they actually do it in a few months? Wasn't the island of Krakatoa repopulated with animal and plant life within a couple years after an 1883 eruption which killed off everything, including bacteria?''
#Oil and Coal Every time a creationist drives he is benefitting from the fact that he is wrong. Petroleum only exists because the Earth is billions of years old. As most know, it is formed when the remains of phytoplankton and zooplankton settle to the bottom of the sea and are compressed and decomposed in anaerobic conditions. There is no other way to make petroleum. Enormous amounts of heat, pressure, and time are require to create petroleum. Only geologic time could do it. The gas in your car is great proof that Christian Fundamentalists are wrong when they said that the Earth was 6,000 years old.
::''What exactly do you mean by "as most know?" When phytoplankton and zooplankton settle on the bottom of the sea they are disposed of by scavengers before any sort of burial takes place, and this little fact is observable. And it isn't just dead animal and plant life that is being consumed; try looking at the remains of an iron-hulled ship that used to be called "Titanic". Courtesy of the recent oil well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico, we have the news from several sources that there are biological critters which eat oil. So, where is the oil coming from if it's being eaten away every time an animal dies?''

Unless all 7 of these questions can be answered, Creationism must be dismissed as pseudoscience. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 23:20, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::Basically, FRodgers, all those questions were answered, and they were answered too many times by too many people with a lot of evidence to back it all up. The first thing you had better do is to disprove the existence of God beyond all doubt; then you can talk about why we should not believe in what you call "pseudoscience". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:09, 2 December 2011 (EST)

::FRodgers, I see the evolutionists are getting desperate because they still can't the 15 questions. Second, the fluff you put forth certainly should not be taken seriously. For example, "Peter Clayton remarked that “it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology” (1994, p. 12, emp. added). Sir Alan Gardiner, the foremost Egyptologist of the twentieth century, spoke of “lamentable gaps” and “many a doubtful attribution,” finally exclaiming: “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters” (1961, p. 48, emp. added). Noting that our present knowledge of Egyptian chronology is “far from satisfactory,” Olaf Toffteen, curator of the Hibbard Egyptian Library in Chicago, explained that the deficiency can be attributed “not to the scarcity of material, but rather to its abundance. This material...exhibits so many contradictions that Egyptologists and historians differ radically in their theories on Egyptian chronology” (1907, 1:149). This indefiniteness does not remove all validity from the chronology, but it must be recognized that the ancient chronology of Egypt, though well established, is far from infallible."[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:38, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Here is some addition information: "The uncertainty to which these scholars refer, results from the shaky foundation upon which Egyptian chronology is built. Manetho, the source of “the basic structure or skeleton of Egyptian chronology that we use today” (Clayton, p. 9), is unreliable and inaccurate. In the introduction to his translation of that historian, W.G. Waddell suggested “there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning” (1997, p. xxv). Further indicting this ancient source, Breasted confessed: “Wherever he can be controlled, Manetho is generally wrong in his figures, and any chronology based on his data is hopelessly astray” (1927, 1:32). Whatever the reason for Manetho’s untrustworthiness, one immediately sees the unreliability of a system whose “basic structure” is “hopelessly astray.”"[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:::And the Question Evolution! campaign relies entirely on quote mining, misrepresentation of science, extremely flawed assumption, critical misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, and outright lies. I don't see your point. While there is some dissent about dates regarding Egypt, the consensus is that Egypt formed pre-flood and survived until the Greeks moved in. You can't explain that. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 00:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:Don't you have any recent references? You can find some good stuff at my YouTube video, "More analysis of the Flood myth" or on my channel, voiceoftruth2006. I'm happy to debate you, by the way. --[[User:VOT2011|VOT2011]] 23:48, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Evolutionists, all your evolutionist jargon, evolutionist whining/kvetching and evolutionist consensus doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This campaign will throw creationist sabots into the machinery of evolutionary indoctrination. Get used to the Question evolution! campaign because you are not going to stop it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:17, 2 December 2011 (EST)

==Archiving==
Archiving shouldn't be used as a tool for [[last wordism]]! I un-archived those arguments to which someone contributed less than a day ago. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Third-party coverage ==

I'd like it if the article showed some coverage from outside the Question Evolution! blog network. Can anyone point to such sources? [[User:RandRover|RandRover]] 18:52, 30 December 2011 (EST)
:Just Google it. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 19:30, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Seattle

2011-12-31T00:23:37Z

ArtWellesley: /* Miscellaneous */

[[Image:Space Needle.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The [[Space Needle]], a Seattle icon.]]
'''Seattle''' (47.606N. -122.33W) with a population 578,700 in 2006, is the largest city in the American state of [[Washington]] and in the [[Pacific]] Northwest. It was named after [[Chief Sealth]], a Suqamish/Duwamish [[Native American]] leader. It was officially incorporated in 1889, but had been a town since 1851, when a group of pioneers from [[Illinois]] settled West Seattle, a peninsula within the current city limits to the west. The city has generally been at capacity since about 1960, since the population hasn't gone up more than 10,000 people since then. However, the population has increased into the suburbs north toward [[Everett]], south toward [[Seatac]] and [[Tacoma]] and east (across [[Lake Washington]]) to [[Mercer Island]], [[Kirkland]], [[Redmond]], [[Bellevue]] and [[Issaquah]].

==Demographics==
The makeup of the population was 67.1 percent White, 16.6 percent [[Asian]], 9.7 percent [[African American]], 2.38 percent from other races, 1.00 percent [[Native American]], 0.50 percent Pacific Islander, and 4.46 percent from two or more races. [[Hispanic]] or [[Latin America|Latino]] of any race were 6.3 percent of the population. Seattle's median household income is $45,736, where the national average is $41,994. The median age of Seattle residents is 37.9. 36.16% of Seattleites are married, 11.5% are divorced, and one third of those who are married have children. The density is 6,886 people per square mile. Seattle was also rated the most educated city in the [[United States]], with 52.7% of it's residents over age 25 holding at least a bachelor's degree. <ref>
[http://neighborhoods.realtor.com/Seattle/2352/Metro The Seattle area]</ref>
Many people have flocked to the Seattle area to work in what's called the "knowledge economy."<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/29/real_estate/brainiest_cities/ America's smartest cities] </ref>
Seattle is the least churched city in America, and Washington State has the highest concentration of people who say they have no religion, including athiests & agnostics. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-03-07-church-free.htm 'Amen' to a church-free lifestyle]</ref> The Pacific Northwest as a region features the lowest amount of religious people. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002552768_harrop11.html The unchurched Northwest]</ref>

==Miscellaneous==

Landmarks include the [[Space Needle]] and the [[Pike Place Market]].

In 1999 Seattle hosted the [[WTO]] at the Washington Convention Center on Pine Street, and found itself the locus of a large protest by anti-globalist activists. Very rapidly, however, anarchists took advantage of the fact that the police were overwhelmed and began destroying property and looting storefronts. The violence of the "Battle of Seattle" raged for several days.

On Ash Wednesday 2001, Seattle sustained damage in the large Nisqually Quake, which cracked the Highway 99 Viaduct and destroyed some vintage brick buildings in Pioneer Square.

Seattle is the home of the [[Discovery Institute]], an influential conservative think tank, and the [[Sasquatch]] Information Society, a [[cryptozoology]] group which seeks at educate the public and gather information on [[Bigfoot]].

The popular television show ''[[Frasier]]'' is set in Seattle.

A [[tram|trolley]] line using former [[railway|railroad]] track was operated by former [[Melbourne]] (Australia) trams from 1982 to 2005

==Sports==

Seattle is the home of the [[NFL]]'s [[Seattle Seahawks]], the [[NBA]]'s Seattle SuperSonics, Major League [[Baseball]]'s [[Seattle Mariners]], and the WHL hockey team Seattle Thunderbirds. The SuperSonics have recently been purchased by an Oklahoman and were subsequently moved.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Washington Cities and Towns]]

Seattle

2011-12-31T00:23:03Z

ArtWellesley: /* Demographics */

[[Image:Space Needle.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The [[Space Needle]], a Seattle icon.]]
'''Seattle''' (47.606N. -122.33W) with a population 578,700 in 2006, is the largest city in the American state of [[Washington]] and in the [[Pacific]] Northwest. It was named after [[Chief Sealth]], a Suqamish/Duwamish [[Native American]] leader. It was officially incorporated in 1889, but had been a town since 1851, when a group of pioneers from [[Illinois]] settled West Seattle, a peninsula within the current city limits to the west. The city has generally been at capacity since about 1960, since the population hasn't gone up more than 10,000 people since then. However, the population has increased into the suburbs north toward [[Everett]], south toward [[Seatac]] and [[Tacoma]] and east (across [[Lake Washington]]) to [[Mercer Island]], [[Kirkland]], [[Redmond]], [[Bellevue]] and [[Issaquah]].

==Demographics==
The makeup of the population was 67.1 percent White, 16.6 percent [[Asian]], 9.7 percent [[African American]], 2.38 percent from other races, 1.00 percent [[Native American]], 0.50 percent Pacific Islander, and 4.46 percent from two or more races. [[Hispanic]] or [[Latin America|Latino]] of any race were 6.3 percent of the population. Seattle's median household income is $45,736, where the national average is $41,994. The median age of Seattle residents is 37.9. 36.16% of Seattleites are married, 11.5% are divorced, and one third of those who are married have children. The density is 6,886 people per square mile. Seattle was also rated the most educated city in the [[United States]], with 52.7% of it's residents over age 25 holding at least a bachelor's degree. <ref>
[http://neighborhoods.realtor.com/Seattle/2352/Metro The Seattle area]</ref>
Many people have flocked to the Seattle area to work in what's called the "knowledge economy."<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/29/real_estate/brainiest_cities/ America's smartest cities] </ref>
Seattle is the least churched city in America, and Washington State has the highest concentration of people who say they have no religion, including athiests & agnostics. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-03-07-church-free.htm 'Amen' to a church-free lifestyle]</ref> The Pacific Northwest as a region features the lowest amount of religious people. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002552768_harrop11.html The unchurched Northwest]</ref>

==Miscellaneous==

Landmarks include the [[Space Needle]] and the [[Pike Place Market]].

In 1999 Seattle hosted the [[WTO]] at the Washington Convention Center on Pine Street, and found itself the locus of a large protest by anti-globalist activists. Very rapidly, however, anarchists took advantage of the fact that the police were overwhelmed and began destroying property and looting storefronts. The violence of the "Battle of Seattle" raged for several days.

On Ash Wednesday 2001, Seattle sustained damage in the large Nisqually Quake, which cracked the Highway 99 Viaduct and destroyed some vintage brick buildings in Pioneer Square.

Seattle is the home of the [[Discovery Institute]], an influential conservative think tank, and the [[Sasquatch]] Information Society, a group which seeks at educate the public and gather information on [[Bigfoot]].

The popular television show ''[[Frasier]]'' is set in Seattle.

A [[tram|trolley]] line using former [[railway|railroad]] track was operated by former [[Melbourne]] (Australia) trams from 1982 to 2005

==Sports==

Seattle is the home of the [[NFL]]'s [[Seattle Seahawks]], the [[NBA]]'s Seattle SuperSonics, Major League [[Baseball]]'s [[Seattle Mariners]], and the WHL hockey team Seattle Thunderbirds. The SuperSonics have recently been purchased by an Oklahoman and were subsequently moved.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Washington Cities and Towns]]

Liturgy

2011-12-31T00:19:59Z

ArtWellesley:

'''Liturgy''' is a term that refers to the prescribed order of [[worship]] used in many [[religion|religions]] and [[church|churches]]. Certain [[Christian]] denominations follow a standard form of worship for their services which normally includes [[hymn]] singing, [[prayer]]s, [[scripture]] readings, responsive readings, a creedal statement, the [[sermon]], a confession of sins, [[Holy Communion]], and a formal dismissal. Other denominations do not use the historic order of worship and are more spontaneous in their worship practices. These are called "non-liturgical" churches. They include the [[Baptist]] and [[Pentecostal]] churches and most [[non-denominational]] ones.

Churches in which a version of the traditional liturgy is used--such as the [[Eastern Orthodox]], [[Roman Catholic]], High Church [[Anglican]], [[Lutheran]], [[Methodist]], [[Reformed]] and [[Presbyterian]] churches--are classified as "liturgical" in worship. In some of them the liturgical service is styled the [[Mass]], a word that invokes the concept of the service as a ceremonial offering of a sacrifice to God.

The liturgy is sometimes set forth according to a book used by the congregation at worship. Examples are the [[Book of Common Prayer]] in the Anglican and Episcopal churches, [[Missals]] used by the Catholic churches, and [[Lutheran]] Service Books.

[[Category: Christian Rites]]

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-31T00:17:28Z

ArtWellesley:

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-31T00:16:08Z

ArtWellesley:

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-31T00:15:38Z

ArtWellesley:

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-30T23:57:09Z

ArtWellesley:

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2011

2011-12-30T23:41:08Z

ArtWellesley:

Age of the Earth

2011-12-30T23:39:33Z

ArtWellesley: It's not implausible. I think it's wrong and it certainly hasn't been shown to be true, but it's definitely plausible.

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-12-30T17:32:35Z

ArtWellesley: Undo revision 949639 by CommonSenseReality (talk)If you'd read the article you'd know.

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is only about 15%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.
#Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Liberal stupidity

2011-12-30T02:30:47Z

ArtWellesley: /* Britain's wind farms vs. reality */ The reference doesn't say that anyone had to reduce energy consumption or go without, and I can't find anything to say this happened. It sounds unlikely.

'''Liberal stupidity''' (based on Latin: ''stupēre'' or ''stupor''; removal from sense or sensibility<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupor</ref><ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid</ref>) is statements, policies, or actions by adherents of liberalism which are authoritative in form, but the end of which is devoid of reality or common sense, with the general public in most cases forced to pay for them. An example is the incredible statement by Democrat [[Hank Johnson]] of [[Georgia]], who feared that the relocation of 8,000 Naval personnel to [[Guam]] would "capsize" the island.<ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dumbest-Congressman-Ever--89652542.html</ref>

==It's in the "genes"==
Researchers under James H. Fowler, professor of medical genetics and political science at the University of California, San Diego, claim to have discovered a "liberal gene" (DRD4) associated with DNA in certain individuals. Fowler's research centered on [[dopamine]], which is a neurotransmitter that affects many processes and controls over the brain, including movement, emotions, pleasure, and pain; he further claims in his paper that it's heritable, meaning it can be passed on from generation to generation, depending on social norms and environments.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/28/researchers-liberal-gene-genetics-politics/</ref><ref>http://american3p.org/establishment-news/new-research-confirms-that-behavior-is-genetic/</ref>

His paper followed previous ones in which he claimed voter turnout was determined by two genes<ref>http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/two_genes_predict_voter_turnout.pdf</ref> and altruism<ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00453.x/full</ref>; all of which appeared in the ''Journal of Politics'' instead of a typical scientific journal. If such a "gene" is true, then it explains many traits of liberal behavior with regards to stupidity, some of which is detailed in the following topics:

==The spitting on the American flag==
America and American values are disrespected and threatened everywhere in the country by rampant liberalism, which is symbolized as a whole by what they do to the [[Flag of the United States of America|flag]]. From displaying it pinned upside-down on jackets or using it as a "walk-on" in art displays, liberals have repeatedly insulted America by their contempt of this highest of American symbols. Some examples include:
*Unrepentent terrorist [[William Ayers]] photographed standing on the flag for a magazine article, ironically published the day of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on America by Islamic terrorists.
*A mural of the flag, painted on a slab of concrete in California days after the 9/11 attacks, declared graffiti by the state legislature and removed days before the Fourth of July, 2010. <ref>http://www.ktvu.com/news/24117983/detail.html</ref>
*The use of the flag as floor mats at the University of Maine, with the arrest of those veterans protesting it if they dared to remove the flags from the floor. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH9bVRAe4NE</ref>
*In an act that still reverberates today, on April 25, 1976, two liberals got on the playing field at Dodger Stadium and attempted to light a flag on fire; their attempt was thwarted by ball player Rick Monday. <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrV8QPQAhxo</ref>

==The staining of an American icon: [[Superman]]==
The comic book character Superman represented American values since his creation in the 1930's by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. In 2011, DC Comics have stated that Superman intends to renounces his U.S. citizenship before the United Nations in Action Comics No. 900, “I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy … ‘truth, justice and the American way’ - it’s not enough anymore.” DC Comics issued a statement saying "Superman announces his intention to put a global focus on his never-ending battle, but he remains, as always, committed to his adopted home..." <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/29/take-your-global-citizenship-and-shove-it-superman/ PICKET: Take your global citizenship and shove it, Superman, Washington Times, April 29, 2011]</ref> Just days later, after negative publicity in the news media and internet bloggers - and coupled with the May 1, 2011 killing of terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]] - did the editors at DC Comics indicate a change of heart. <ref>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42903580/ns/today-books/t/will-superman-stay-american-citizen/</ref>

==U.S. Congressional members==
====Gary Condit====
A democrat from California's 18th district (Modesto), Condit gained noteriety when he attempted to stonewall a police investigation into the 2001 disappearance and murder of political intern Chandra Levy; it was revealed during the investigation that Condit had an affair with her<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/07/condit.missing.intern/</ref><ref>http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/condit/profile.html</ref>. Although cleared as a prime suspect in the case, his political career was finished as a result of the scandal; he lost in the election of 2002. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/chandra/</ref>

====Major Owens====
A Democratic socialist from New York City, Owens stated in a 1995 speech on the House floor that during the African slave trade more than 200,000,000 people were thrown over the sides of the slave ships which carried them across the Atlantic, permanently disrupting the ecology and causing sharks to follow any and all ships since the trade was stopped in the 1850's. This figure worked out to be 152 slaves taken aboard nine ships per day for 200 years to get the total amount of slaves thrown overboard. After reworking his absurd figure down to 100,000,000 slaves, Owens' claim was picked up by ABC News, which reported the claim as "fact".<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N81fOuca8Oc&feature=related</ref><ref>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1766</ref><ref>http://snoopzone.blogspot.com/2005/11/200000000.html</ref>

==State legislative members==
====Mike Moran====
Democratic State Representative Mike Moran of Brighton, Massachusetts was involved in a collision on May 21, 2010 with an illegal immigrant and was seriously injured. The suspect, 27-year-old Isaias Naranjo, was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a license, and driving drunk; he had a blood alcohol level of .25, and reportedly laughed when the charges were read to him.<ref>http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/state-rep-in-accident-with-suspected-illegal-immigrant-20100521</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/24/car-crash-involving-mass-lawmaker-suspected-illegal-immigrant-heats-debate/</ref><ref>http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/ma-state-rep-mike-moran-tax-spend.html</ref>

Moran voted YES to several bills seen as "pro-illegal immigrant" in Massachusetts<ref>http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=15237</ref>, including to vote to "delay indefinitely" a proposal to "require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts" <ref>http://www.wickedlocal.com/allston/town_info/government/x1406500748/Beacon-Hill-Roll-Call-Legislature-approves-state-budget-rejects-tax-cuts</ref>

==Foreign leaders==
On April 27, 2010 [[Gordon Brown]], prime minister of the [[United Kingdom]], was confronted by an elderly Gillian Duffy, 65, and a life-long member of the [[Labour Party]]. Her question had to do with the massive influx of immigrants to her hometown of Rochdale, the high taxation, the massive British debt, her disappointment in her party, and she wanted answers as to why. After the standard liberal answers, Brown got into his car and - ''forgetting he had a microphone on, which was still recording'' - talked to his aide: ''"That was a disaster...should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?...she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour."'' Brown was apologetic almost as immediately as word of his gaffe leaked to the press<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269486/Election-2010-Gordon-Browns-bigoted-woman-insult-Gillian-Duffy.html</ref>, but the damage was done: Brown's Labour Party lost the election and he resigned from office.<ref>http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Brown-to-Resign-British-Labor-Party-Leadership-93598409.html</ref>

==News reporters==
====Nick McDermott====
The reporter at CBS affiliate KTVA in Alaska left a message in late October, 2010 with staffers of Republican Senate candidate [[Joe Miller]], "hoping" for an interview. Apparently not familiar with the operation of his iPhone - namely the "on/off" button - he left it on, allowing Miller's spokesperson, Randy DeSoto, to leave a full transcript of a plot to insert a convicted child molester, or, failing that, create an incident of violence, inside of a Miller rally.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=221973</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/31/miller-campaign-claims-tape-shows-reporters-trying-connect-child-molesters/</ref>

====Dan Rather====
The CBS anchorman became an ex-CBS employee soon after he presented a story on ''60 Minutes Wednesday'' on September 8, 2004; in it he presented "documents" dated in 1972, supposedly written by the commanding officer at a Texas Air National Guard base, which were critical of then-1st LT [[George W. Bush]], and hinting of his refusal to serve in Vietnam. Determined to have been poorly-concocted forgeries - which included a non-existent post office box and a type setting equal to a computer program which wasn't created until years later - the "Killian Documents" were dismissed as an [[October surprise]] meant to thwart the election of Bush that year; in fact producer Marla Mapes had in her possession evidence that contradicted the documents, but buried it instead in favor of Rather's "story". Failure to maintain basic journalistic investigation proceedures resulted in the firing of Rather, Mapes, and a number of other individuals; the tendering of resignations of senior CBS staffers; as well as bestowing a name on the whole episode in Rather's honor: [[Rathergate]].

==Hollywood stars==
====Jon Dalton====
Dalton, who goes by the stage name "Jonny Fairplay" did something to cause boos directed against himself at the Fox Reality Awards Show on October 2, 2007. During this round actor [[Danny Bonaduce]] walked up next to him and said the obvious: "They're booing because they hate you." Upon turning his back on Dalton and attempting to exit the stage, Bonaduce was jumped on by Dalton, who subjected him to a sexual act. Either forgotten or ignored was the fact that Bonaduce has a black belt in Tang Soo Do, and he simply flipped him up and over; Dalton hit the stage floor face-first and lost some teeth. His exit off the stage was humiliating and rapid, made worse by the L.A. district attorney declining to press assault charges against Bonaduce due to insufficient evidence.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9wK2hFmxT4][http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b57723_Fairplay_Must_Fix_Bonaduce_Suit.html</ref>

==Education==
====Kansas City and $2 billion wasted====
In 1985 a Federal judge ordered the state of Missouri and the district containing Kansas City to enforce desegregation, build new schools, and bring its low educational levels up to better standards, with the amount of money they would have to pay set at $2 billion dollars over 12 years. During this period $11,700 per pupil was spent, in addition to "higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal"<ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html</ref> among other things. The results today: no rise in test scores, failed integration, a loss of accreditation in 2000, a complete failure to meet all of Missouri's performance standards, and a shortfall of $52 million dollars in the budget...which would force the closing of 29 of its 61 schools.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_stupidity&action=edit</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/kc_schools_a_case_study_in_lib.html</ref><ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/04/news/mn-26560</ref>

==Energy needs==
====Britain's wind farms vs. reality====
[[Great Britain]] decided to "go green," and built 3,000 wind turbines, with the goal of 10,000 by 2020 to produce as much as thirty percent of energy needs; this would also be in conjunction with the closing of gas and coal-fired power stations and coal mines. As of the winter of 2010-11, one third of these turbines are shut down due to a lack of wind; the remainder are producing a mere 1.8 percent of the nation's electric needs. The result: higher prices for the importation of oil and coal, and higher production of the so-called "greenhouse gases" that these turbines are supposed to avoid. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-becalmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html</ref>

==Environmentalism==
====Bryan Nelson====
An enviro-journalist for ''Mother Nature Network'', Byron Nelson wrote that the conquests of the Mongol leader [[Genghis Khan]] had a beneficial effect on the environment. "Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire," Nelson explains, "about 22 percent of the world's total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests. In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan's unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere."<ref>http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/was-genghis-khan-historys-greenest-conqueror</ref>

Nelson does not explain how trees are more beneficial than grasslands or crops in removing carbon, but the implied meaning of his column is the celebration of the slaughter of millions of people for the sake of the environment.

{{Liberalism}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Carbon dating

2011-12-30T01:03:03Z

ArtWellesley: /* Rate of Atomic Decay */ Not quite true. It can be - and has been - verified as remaining constant over the period since we've been able to measure it. However it may not have been constant earlier.

'''Carbon dating''', or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or artifacts made from anything that once lived.
Unlike many other radiometric dating methods, carbon dating has been calibrated for historical periods and within that range can give reliable results.

== Principles ==

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years.]]
The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C [[isotope]]s in the sample.
14C is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray [[neutron]]s replacing a [[proton]] in [[nitrogen]] (14N), producing 14C.<ref name="TH">Higham, Thomas, [http://www.c14dating.com/int.html Introduction], Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

14C is unstable and [[radioactive decay|decays]] back to 14N, at the rate of 50% every 5,730 years (so after 11,460 years 25% will be left, after 17,190 years 12.5% will be left, and so on).

In the meantime, however, the 14C will combine with [[oxygen]] in the atmosphere to form [[carbon dioxide]], which enters the food chain via [[photosynthesis]] in plants.<ref name="TH" />
By this means, most living things also have 14C and 12C in the same ratio as in the atmosphere.
This ratio is about one 14C atom for every 1,000,000,000,000 12C atoms.<ref name="TH" />

However, when the sample dies, it stops ingesting 14C, so as the 14C decays to 14N, the ratio of 14C and 12C changes.
This ratio of 14C to 12C is measured and a calculation turns the measurement into a figure representing how long ago the sample died.

Depending on the method used to measure the 14C, after about 50,000 years or so there is not enough left to measure, although advanced techniques can possibly stretch that to 100,000 years.<ref>Nave, R., [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html Carbon Dating], Georgia State University.</ref>
This then becomes the maximum age that can theoretically be derived by this method.

Therefore, any sample with too little 14C to measure must, in theory, be older than 50,000 to 100,000 years, and it is not possible to determine how much older.
Similarly, any sample with measurable 14C must be younger than 50,000 to 100,000 years, assuming that adequate precautions have been taken to eliminate contamination.

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

Carbon dating, like other [[radiometric dating]] methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

=== Calibration ===

Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to [[calibration|calibrate]] the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating.
That is, samples with dates known from historical records can be used to check the accuracy of the method.
Despite this, however, caution is still necessary in accepting dates derived from carbon dating.

Claims have been made of the method being calibrated back to 10,000 years using [[dendrochronology]],<ref name="TH" /> however these older dates derived via dendrochronology have themselves been derived with the assistance of carbon dating,<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> making this circular reasoning.

=== Variable intake ===

Not all living things do have 14C:12C ratios the same as the atmosphere. For example it is well known that carbon dating cannot be used on many types of marine life due to reservoirs of "old" carbon held in sedimentary rocks. This problem is especially severe in shellfish or anything that eats shellfish; it is not unusual for freshly-killed seals to be dated as several thousand years old.
{{QuoteBox|...various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, [http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm Carbon-14 Dating"]</ref>}}

=== Atmospheric variability ===

The method relies on the assumption that we know how much 14C is in the atmosphere, but this has been known to change.
Nuclear testing since the 1950s has resulted in a large increase in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, but because the levels have been measured since the 1950s, calculations can be adjusted for these changing levels, meaning that dating of recent samples is possible.<ref name="K12">Higham, Thomas? [http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html K-12] Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

However, atmospheric levels are also known to have changed since the start of the [[industrial revolution]], making dating items from this period more difficult.<ref name="K12" />

Dating laboratories do not make any allowance for the change in atmospheric levels that would have occurred as a result of [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]].
This means that radio-carbon dates cannot be used to prove that the Flood did not occur, because it ''assumes'' that it did not occur.<ref>Batten, Don, (Ed.) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf What about carbon dating?] Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

=== Solar-Earth effect ===

Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Physikalish-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany have reported "unexplained periodic fluctuations in the [nuclear] decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226... strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun." It is likely that similar discrepancies and fluctuations occur with other nuclear decay rates, such as that of 14C. It remains for scientists to perform experiments to explore these emerging issues. <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance], Jenkins et al. Abstract: Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Si-32), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (Ra-226). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.</ref>

== History ==

Carbon Dating was developed by [[Willard F. Libby]] and his team of scientists at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1949.<ref name="TH" />
They initially measured the 'half-life' (a term that Libby coined)<ref name="TH" /> as 5568±30 years, and this became known as the ''Libby half-life''.<ref name="TH" />
It was later measured more accurately to be 5730±40 years, now known as the ''Cambridge half-life''.<ref name="TH" />

== Widespread misunderstandings ==

Many people believe that carbon dating has proved that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, much older than the biblically derived date of around 6,000 years. However, as explained above, carbon dating is incapable of providing dates in the range of millions or billions of years, and some atheistic scientists turn to more speculative forms of dating to try to derive such extraordinary time periods.

Some also argue that carbon dating should only be used on samples that fall within the range over which it can measure.
However, this prompts the question of how one might determine this prior to using carbon dating to determine the age.
They further argue that dating much older items will result in anomalous dates, which might fall within the range that carbon dating can measure.
This is incorrect. Any sample that is older than the range that carbon dating will measure will record zero 14C, and can therefore not be confused with younger samples.

==See also==
*[[Martin Kamen]]
*[[Willard Libby]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Chronology]][[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Carbon dating

2011-12-30T01:00:50Z

ArtWellesley: /* Variable intake */ Adding detail.

'''Carbon dating''', or carbon-14 dating, is a method for comparing the ages of organic materials such as bones or artifacts made from anything that once lived.
Unlike many other radiometric dating methods, carbon dating has been calibrated for historical periods and within that range can give reliable results.

== Principles ==

[[Image:C-14decay.JPG|framed|The first-order decay curve of carbon-14 based on the half-life of 5730 years.]]
The technique is based on comparing the levels of 14C and 12C [[isotope]]s in the sample.
14C is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray [[neutron]]s replacing a [[proton]] in [[nitrogen]] (14N), producing 14C.<ref name="TH">Higham, Thomas, [http://www.c14dating.com/int.html Introduction], Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

14C is unstable and [[radioactive decay|decays]] back to 14N, at the rate of 50% every 5,730 years (so after 11,460 years 25% will be left, after 17,190 years 12.5% will be left, and so on).

In the meantime, however, the 14C will combine with [[oxygen]] in the atmosphere to form [[carbon dioxide]], which enters the food chain via [[photosynthesis]] in plants.<ref name="TH" />
By this means, most living things also have 14C and 12C in the same ratio as in the atmosphere.
This ratio is about one 14C atom for every 1,000,000,000,000 12C atoms.<ref name="TH" />

However, when the sample dies, it stops ingesting 14C, so as the 14C decays to 14N, the ratio of 14C and 12C changes.
This ratio of 14C to 12C is measured and a calculation turns the measurement into a figure representing how long ago the sample died.

Depending on the method used to measure the 14C, after about 50,000 years or so there is not enough left to measure, although advanced techniques can possibly stretch that to 100,000 years.<ref>Nave, R., [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html Carbon Dating], Georgia State University.</ref>
This then becomes the maximum age that can theoretically be derived by this method.

Therefore, any sample with too little 14C to measure must, in theory, be older than 50,000 to 100,000 years, and it is not possible to determine how much older.
Similarly, any sample with measurable 14C must be younger than 50,000 to 100,000 years, assuming that adequate precautions have been taken to eliminate contamination.

== Limits of Carbon Dating ==

Carbon dating, like other [[radiometric dating]] methods, requires certain assumptions that cannot be scientifically proved.
These include the starting conditions, the constancy of the rate of decay, and that no material has left or entered the sample.

=== Calibration ===

Unlike other radiometric dating techniques where it is not possible to [[calibration|calibrate]] the method against historically-known dates, limited calibration is possible for carbon dating.
That is, samples with dates known from historical records can be used to check the accuracy of the method.
Despite this, however, caution is still necessary in accepting dates derived from carbon dating.

Claims have been made of the method being calibrated back to 10,000 years using [[dendrochronology]],<ref name="TH" /> however these older dates derived via dendrochronology have themselves been derived with the assistance of carbon dating,<ref>Batten, Don, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> making this circular reasoning.

=== Variable intake ===

Not all living things do have 14C:12C ratios the same as the atmosphere. For example it is well known that carbon dating cannot be used on many types of marine life due to reservoirs of "old" carbon held in sedimentary rocks. This problem is especially severe in shellfish or anything that eats shellfish; it is not unusual for freshly-killed seals to be dated as several thousand years old.
{{QuoteBox|...various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animal's diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age."<ref>Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Resource Center, [http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm Carbon-14 Dating"]</ref>}}

=== Atmospheric variability ===

The method relies on the assumption that we know how much 14C is in the atmosphere, but this has been known to change.
Nuclear testing since the 1950s has resulted in a large increase in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, but because the levels have been measured since the 1950s, calculations can be adjusted for these changing levels, meaning that dating of recent samples is possible.<ref name="K12">Higham, Thomas? [http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html K-12] Radiocarbon web-info.</ref>

However, atmospheric levels are also known to have changed since the start of the [[industrial revolution]], making dating items from this period more difficult.<ref name="K12" />

Dating laboratories do not make any allowance for the change in atmospheric levels that would have occurred as a result of [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]].
This means that radio-carbon dates cannot be used to prove that the Flood did not occur, because it ''assumes'' that it did not occur.<ref>Batten, Don, (Ed.) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf What about carbon dating?] Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book''.</ref>

=== Solar-Earth effect ===

Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Physikalish-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany have reported "unexplained periodic fluctuations in the [nuclear] decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226... strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun." It is likely that similar discrepancies and fluctuations occur with other nuclear decay rates, such as that of 14C. It remains for scientists to perform experiments to explore these emerging issues. <ref>[http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance], Jenkins et al. Abstract: Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of Si-32 and Ra-226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Si-32), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (Ra-226). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.</ref>

=== Rate of Atomic Decay ===

Carbon dating assumes that the half life of 14C remains constant over long periods of time. Obviously, this assumption cannot be verified empirically as it assumes an objective "yardstick" to measure the age of carbon samples, thus creating a circular set of assumptions. <ref>Hovind, Eric [http://www.drdino.com/evidence-for-a-young-earth/ Evidence For a Young Earth]</ref>

== History ==

Carbon Dating was developed by [[Willard F. Libby]] and his team of scientists at the [[University of Chicago]] in 1949.<ref name="TH" />
They initially measured the 'half-life' (a term that Libby coined)<ref name="TH" /> as 5568±30 years, and this became known as the ''Libby half-life''.<ref name="TH" />
It was later measured more accurately to be 5730±40 years, now known as the ''Cambridge half-life''.<ref name="TH" />

== Widespread misunderstandings ==

Many people believe that carbon dating has proved that the Earth is millions or billions of years old, much older than the biblically derived date of around 6,000 years. However, as explained above, carbon dating is incapable of providing dates in the range of millions or billions of years, and some atheistic scientists turn to more speculative forms of dating to try to derive such extraordinary time periods.

Some also argue that carbon dating should only be used on samples that fall within the range over which it can measure.
However, this prompts the question of how one might determine this prior to using carbon dating to determine the age.
They further argue that dating much older items will result in anomalous dates, which might fall within the range that carbon dating can measure.
This is incorrect. Any sample that is older than the range that carbon dating will measure will record zero 14C, and can therefore not be confused with younger samples.

==See also==
*[[Martin Kamen]]
*[[Willard Libby]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Chronology]][[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Walt Brown

2011-12-30T00:40:21Z

ArtWellesley: Fixing typos and use of British English.

[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|right|thumb|200px|Dr. Walt Brown]]
Dr. '''Walt Brown''' is the Director of the [[Center for Scientific Creation]] and works full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.<ref name="book">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/</ref> Dr. Brown obtained his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) where he was a [[National Science Foundation]] fellow.<ref name="book" />

For much of his life, Dr. Brown was an [[Theory of evolution|evolutionist]] but later became convinced of the validity of [[young earth creationism]] and the reality of the [[Great Flood]].

Dr. Brown is the subject of a chapter of ''Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World'' by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco.<ref name="book" />

Glenn Morton, an [[Old Earth Creationist]] who holds a BS in engineering from the University of Oklahoma claims, using [[differential equation]]s, that, according to his understanding of Brown's conceptions of the events leading to the Great Flood, the Earth would have had to be perfectly smooth, directly contradicting biblical references to mountains.<ref>http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm</ref>

==Debate Challenge==

In early December 2011 Dr. Brown accepted a debate challenge from an evolutionist, Fergus Mason, who refused to accept Dr. Brown's [[hydroplate theory]]. During initial discussions about what personal information Brown required for the debate to proceed it emerged that Brown was forwarding all of Mason's emails to the owner of the [[Conservative News and Views]] (CNAV) blog, without removing details such as Mason's private telephone number. When challenged about this Brown insisted on his right to distribute Mason's personal details as he wished and stated that he, not Mason, would evaluate any security concerns that Mason - a former soldier - had about this distribution. He then offered to let Mason give details of his military service and current job to a university debate club coach to decide if his concerns were valid. Mason declined, on the grounds that such a person is not qualified to make that decision, and stated that he would give the information directly to Brown himself as soon as he received an assurance that it wouldn't be passed on to anyone else. At this point Brown went silent; as of 29 December 2011 he had not contacted Mason since 16 December, despite repeated emails asking him to proceed with the planning of the debate. Mason then informed Brown via both email and a post on CNAV (which was promptly deleted) that if no response was received by midnight on 30 December he would regard Brown as having withdrawn from the debate.<ref>http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/12/19/creation/hydroplate-theory-debate-reality-check/#comment-5222</ref>

== Publications ==
*''In the Beginning:Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' by Dr. Walt Brown. ISBN 1878026089

== External Links ==
[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ Center for Scientific Creation]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Brown, Walt}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]