Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Censorship

2014-12-17T21:44:55Z

DRomnik: added example

[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|400px|thumb|Adolf Hitler's rise to power was greatly aided by '''censoring''' his critics.<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/censorship_in_nazi_germany.htm Censorship in Nazi Germany</ref><ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007677 US Holocaust Museum]</ref><ref>[http://www.historyofpainters.com/entartete.htm Censorship of media and the fine arts]</ref><ref>[http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/index.php?content=1933_bookburning Essay on Bookburning]</ref>]]
'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons. Current examples of censorship include:

*refusal to carry news about the horrors at the [[abortion]] clinic of Gosnell Kermit, on trial for murder in April 2013 in Philadelphia
*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom.<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the restrictions on sidewalk counseling of women about the harms caused by [[abortion]].
*the removal of [[conservative]] ideas from Wikipedia, for example, Wikipedia has no articles about the ills of atheism<ref>See [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. </ref>
*the refusal to report on news that a prominent African American endorsed a [[conservative]] candidate.
*the refusal to expose, in a timely manner, falsehoods published by the [[communist]] media.
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements.<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>
*the vandalizing of pro-life displays and conservative websites.

*Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref> See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
*protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses.<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/ At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder] Ny Sun, October 5, 2006</ref>
*Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>

*the destruction or theft of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*Censorship of [[conservative]] [[talk radio]] via the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

*[[Internet censorship]] employed by a country, which can include such things as the filtering of anti-government sites in [[China]] or the censoring of [[women's rights]] or anti-[[Islam]] sites in [[Middle East|Middle Eastern]] countries

*Schools banning or using [[placement bias]] to keep students from books such as the [[Bible]], or books critical of the [[theory of evolution]].

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the best-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the First Amendment.

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabian prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion, or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession."</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Censorability]]
* [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* [[Liberal censorship]]
* [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]]
* [[Evolutionist censorship]]
* [[Tools of censorship]]
* [[Media censorship]]
* [[Mass surveillance]] of [[Big government]] [[ObamaCare]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Police state]]: [[Globalist]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[Communist]]
* [[Liberal totalitarianism]]

'''Contrast with:'''

* [[Tails (operating system)]] ([[Linux]]-based) and [[Tor (anonymity network)]]-[[I2P]] [[Firefox]] [[browser]] [[HTTPS Everywhere]] [[encryption]] for [[Internet]] [[anonymity]] to protect [[unalienable rights|unalienable]] [[Fifth Amendment]] - [[Fourth Amendment]] [[Right to Privacy]] ([[Internet privacy]]) and [[Second Amendment]] - [[First Amendment]] rights against [[unconstitutional]] [[Gun control]] - [[Internet censorship]] [[Big government]] [[Police state]], [[hackers]], and "[[5 U.S.C. § 3331|all enemies, foreign and domestic]]" of [[American values|American]] [[liberty]].
* [[Encryption]]: [[Cryptography]]-[[Cryptanalysis]]-[[Cryptology]]-[[Data encryption]]-[[Public-key encryption]]
* [[Conservative values]] and [[Libertarian]] [[American values]] of [[Limited government]] and [[liberty]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Socialism]]

Pluto

2014-12-17T21:40:44Z

DRomnik: added details about California's government slandering conservatives

{{Planet|image=Pluto sri.jpg
|caption=Mosaic, true-color image of Pluto based on eclipses of Pluto by its satellite, [[Charon]].
|date=1930
|discname=[[Clyde W. Tombaugh]]
|origname=Greco-Roman god of wealth and the underworld
|primary=Sun
|order=10
|periapsis=29.65834067 AU
|apoapsis=49.30503287 AU
|semimajor=39.48168677 AU
|bode=77.2 AU
|circumference=188.925 AU
|eccentricity=0.24880766
|sidereal=248.09 a
|synodic=366.73 da (1.004 a)
|orbitspeed=4.666 km/s
|inclination=17.14175°
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=-6.387230 da
|rotatespeed=47.18 km/h
|axialtilt=119.591°
|mass=1.305 * 1022 kg (0.218% earth)
|density=2,030 kg/m³
|surfacegrav=0.58 m/s² (0.0591 ''g'')
|escapespeed=1.2 km/s
|meanradius =1,195 km
|surfacearea=17,950,000 km² (3.519% earth)
|mintemp=33 K
|meantemp=44 K
|maxtemp=55 K
|moons=3 or more
}}'''Pluto''' is the second-largest known [[dwarf planet]] in the solar system (after [[Eris]]) and the tenth largest observed body directly orbiting the [[Sun]].<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070614_eris_mass.html</ref> Its name literally means "god of wealth" and is one of the two names for one of the brothers of Zeus; the other is Hades, or "god of the underworld." (The Romans used only the name ''Pluto'' for this particular Greek god.)

According to the [[International Astronomical Union]], it no longer qualifies as a [[planet]] because it has not cleared its orbit of other objects.

== Discovery ==
In 1930, [[Clyde W. Tombaugh]] at the Lowell Observatory surveyed the sky, looking for a planet beyond [[Neptune]] (called "Planet X") that other astronomers had predicted from calculations based on an erroneous value for Neptune's mass. Tombaugh knew nothing of the error, but found an object anyway, and named it Pluto.

But even he realized that Pluto was not large enough to be the predicted Planet X. Astronomers continued to search in vain for it, until [[Voyager 2]] made its flyby of [[Neptune]], and the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] scientists determined from this flyby that Neptune was significantly heavier than previously supposed. Current theory predicts no more planets other than the eight now known, but still allows for many other objects, both in the classic [[asteroid]] belt and in the [[Kuiper Belt]], essentially a second belt of asteroids and [[comet]]s.

== The dwarf planet controversy ==
[[Image:Pluto3.gif|left|thumb|Pluto(center) with moon [[Charon]]. NASA image]]
The discovery of [[Eris]], a scatter-disk body 27% more massive than Pluto, caused a controversy concerning what does, and what does not, constitute a [[planet]]. If Pluto were to retain its historical designation of "planet," then Eris would also qualify. But Eris was held not to qualify because it was in a neighborhood with multiple other objects, a situation similar to those of similar bodies in the [[asteroid]] belt, namely [[Ceres]] and [[Eros]].

In 2006, the [[International Astronomical Union]] passed the following resolution:{{cquote|'''RESOLUTION 5A'''
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "[[dwarf planet]]" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d)is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

1The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
2An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
3These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies. <ref>"[http://www.iau.org/iau0602.423.0.html IAU0602: the Final IAU Resolution on the Definition of 'Planet' Ready for Voting]," ''International Astronomical Union'', 2005. Accessed January 14, 2008.</ref> }}

Under those rather strict criteria, Pluto does not qualify. For that reason, Pluto is no longer considered a planet. It shares the new "dwarf planet" category with Eris, Ceres, Haumea and Makemake. <ref>http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0807/</ref>

== Known facts ==
Pluto has an elliptical orbit. It is usually further from the sun than any of the eight planets, but there are times due to its odd orbit when it is closer than [[Neptune]].<ref>http://science.jrank.org/pages/5352/Pluto.html</ref>

== Pluto's Origin ==
Pluto was initially thought to have originally been a [[moon]] of [[Neptune]] that escaped into its own orbit around the [[Sun]]. But with the discovery of [[Charon]] in 1978, and the subsequent discoveries of its other moons [[Hydra (moon)|Hydra]] and [[Nix]], that theory became far less plausible. The current theory is that Pluto and Charon both formed from the [[nebula hypothesis|solar nebula]] as the other planets in the solar system did. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-54312/Pluto</ref>

== In popular fiction ==
[[Science fiction]] author Larry Niven once speculated on an "earlier generation" race of [[extraterrestrial life|extraterrestrial beings]] that controlled the [[galaxy]] until it suffered mutual annihilation in a war with a revolting slave race. As part of that scenario, a member of that "slaver race" once had to make an emergency "landing" in a crippled spacecraft that could no longer brake to a safe approach speed. He then set a course for the [[earth]], bailed out of his ship, and left the ship's autopilot with orders to crash-land on Neptune. Instead of that happening, the ship struck a moon of Neptune hard enough to knock it out of orbit; that moon became known as Pluto.

Pluto has also been a subject of speculation involving future efforts by humanity to colonize that body, efforts often complicated by the presence of extraterrestrial "campers" or even of pathogens, usually [[virus]]es, native to Pluto.

== Satellites ==
[[Image:PlutoSystem.jpg|150 px|left]]Pluto has at least three [[moon]]s, the largest of which is [[Charon]]. (The size of Charon relative to Pluto is such that Pluto and Charon are often collectively considered to be a binary system. Due to their sizes, the center of rotation is not "inside" pluto, but rather above its surface. Rather than rotating around Pluto, Pluto and Charon rotate around a common center of gravity.) The others are named [[Hydra (moon)|Hydra]] and [[Nix]].

== California Legislature Conspiracy ==
The fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet was pushed by conservatives. The liberal Californian government attempted slander of the conservative International Astronomical Union in their assembly bill HR 39[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21982] (by completely discrediting the conservative's work on a purely partisan agenda).

==References==
<references/>

== Related links ==
* Hamilton, Calvin J. "[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/pluto.htm Entry for 'Pluto']." ''Views of the Solar System'', 2007. Accessed January 21, 2008.

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

{{Solarsystem}}

Fox News Channel

2014-12-16T17:27:04Z

DRomnik: added some clarification in the third paragraph

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. The average age of its viewership is 74 years old, and even 79 years old for its [[O'Reilly Factor]]. Much of Fox News Channel is self-serving "happy talk," telling its elderly audience what it wants to hear, or selling O'Reilly's latest book.

The Fox News Channel heavily promotes [[RINO Backers]] -- commentators who may appear to be [[conservative]] but side with [[RINO]]s just when it matters most. Examples include [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Rush Limbaugh]], who savaged [[Todd Akin]] for making a [[pro-life]] statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against [[pro-life]] Republican candidates.

Even pundit [[Sarah Palin]] is too [[conservative]] for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,<ref>"[[Sarah Palin]]: 'Fox canceled my interviews.''" [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/sarah-palin-fox-cancelled-my-interviews-133729.html]</ref> and then refused to renew her contract at the end of 2012. Fox negotiated a new contract five months later.<ref name=politico/>

More generally, the Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[liberals]] on most political issues, and as a result it is more reliable and unbiased than the MNM networks. However, The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]]. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative [[Republican]]s, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted [[John McCain]] and [[Chris Christie]] while excluding their more [[conservative]] primary opponents. It drifted further from the [[Conservative Movement|conservative movement]] by petulantly declaring that [[conservative]] [[Newt Gingrich]] would not be accepted back.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ailes-newt-cant-come-back-to-fox-120421.html</ref>

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and [[Roger Ailes]], who perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced and fair reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. [[Mainstream media]] "[[political correctness]]" was banished. As an example, Fox news [[anchor]]s call [[terrorist]]s what they are, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived [[liberal bias]] everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html [[New York Times]], January 9, 2010]</ref> But the profit motive may cause some of the hostility Fox News has to the [[conservative]] positions on important social issues.

Indeed, for over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing [[NBC]], [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[The New York Times]], and the rest of running a liberal [[propaganda]] machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===
Fox News is accused of being blatantly biased towards the right, during its supposedly non-partisan news reports. These false accusations stem from alleged injection of opinion in news stories, selectively preventing liberals a chance to be represented on the channel, and support for high ranking Republican Party members. Opponents to this theory cite the fact that Fox News parent company News Corp. overwhelmingly donates campaign contributions to Democrats <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/fox-news-parent-company-funneling-money-to-dems/ Fox News parent co. funneling money to Dems? WND.com, July 22, 2013]</ref> and the network employs the following [[liberal]]s:

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Dennis Kucinich]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Santita Jackson]]
*[[Simon Rosenberg]]
*[[Howard Kurtz]]
*[[James Carville]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every [[Liberal tactics|Democratic Party talking point]], against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Fox News Canada ==
Liberals have successfully painted Fox News as being blocked in [[Canada]] because of laws against lying, the premise is false. While they don't operate in Canada because of the legal tactics of direct competitor and wholly-owned government entity [[CBC|Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]] (CBC), Fox News does broadcast their channel by selling programs to Canadian third party independent media firms like Bell, Rogers and 20 other companies. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html Where in the World is FOX?, Fox News, march 1, 2011]</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fringe views versus Fox News ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Obama Administration versus Fox News ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

==Fox News versus Conservatives==
Popular opinion programming is skewed in favor of voices from establishment Republican, [[RINO]] members. This is most evident with their guest speakers such as [[Karl Rove]]. You'll never here Fox use the words liberal Republican or RINO. The most liberal members of the Republican party are labelled moderates. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/26/paul-make-key-stop-in-maine-with-state-gop-split-between-libertarians-and/?intcmp=latestnews Fox News calls Liberal Republican Susan Collins a Moderate]</ref> Fox News will occasionally follow stories about the [[Tea Party|Tea Party movement]] however they prefer to air the liberal side prominently, airing outright lies from liberals. [[Rush Limbaugh]] claimed Fox News wouldn't let him talk about immigration issues and preferred to control the narrative, also known as [[censorship]]. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/rush-limbaugh-accuses-fox-news-of-trying-to-censor-him-quite-telling/ RUSH LIMBAUGH ACCUSES FOX NEWS OF TRYING TO CENSOR HIM: ‘QUITE TELLING’, The Blaze.com, July 2, 2013]</ref> Republican RINO leadership such as [[John McCain]], [[Lindsey Graham]] and others love the spotlight of a camera and Fox News is there for them.

Fox News makes sure to hammer conservative guests. In September 2013, Fox's Chris Wallace claimed that establishment Republicans gave him opposition research against conservative [[Ted Cruz]] in his fight to defund [[Obamacare]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/22/foxs-chris-wallace-republicans-feeding-me-opposition-research-against-ted-cruz/ Fox’s Chris Wallace: Republicans Feeding Me Opposition Research Against Ted Cruz, WeaselZippers.com, September 22, 2013]</ref> Wallace has refused calls for him to release names. Nearly every host and guest, with the exception of [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Laura Ingraham]], spread the establishment surrender message that the GOP can't win the defunding fight.

In the aftermath for the November 5th, 2013 race for governor, many Fox articles speak about RINO [[Chris Christie]] and the implications of his victory. Nothing at all about [[Ken Cuccinelli]] being abandoned by the establishment D.C. GOP despite a strong focus from talk radio. Cuccinelli almost pulled off the upset victory, yet no Fox coverage.

After David Brat knocked off House Majority leader [[Eric Cantor]], Fox News commentators took to the air with glum faces of disbelief and dour reactions. Brit Hume said the David Brat win will help Democrats and hurt the GOP. <ref>[http://twitchy.com/2014/06/10/brit-hume-says-dave-brat-win-will-hurt-gop-without-immigration-reform/ Brit Hume says Dave Brat win will hurt GOP without immigration reform, Twitchy.com, June 10, 2014]</ref>

The news all over the conservative sphere talks about how the GOP used voter fraud, lies, and Democrats, in a Republican primary runoff to defeat Chris McDaniels in [[Mississippi]]. Fox News gave the controversy barely a mention the day after and nothing since. This despite story after story of fraud, race-baiting robocalls and fliers unearthed. One county with a 1,000 illegal ballots cast and 9 other counties refusing the McDaniel campaign from looking at the voter books. The [[Thad Cochran]] campaign is pressing to certify the election as soon as possible, preventing McDaniels from his legal right to pursue election integrity.

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates. --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

In a December 2013 interview by Hollywood Reporter, Ailes was talking about MSNBC no longer being in the news business and then said,
{{cquote| “For [[CNN]] to also throw in the towel and announce they’re out of the news business is quite interesting.”}}

This upset rival CNN President [[Jeff Zucker]] greatly and he lashed back that the GOP runs Fox News. <ref>[http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2014/01/10/zucker-gop-being-run-from-fox-news-headquarters-n1777255 Zucker: GOP being run from Fox News headquarters, Townhall.com, January 11, 12014]</ref>

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the G. W. Bush [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

Palin left in January 2013 looking to take her message to a "larger audience", but returned as a political commentator under a new contract in June 2013.<ref name=politico>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-palin-fox-news-contributor-92747.html|title=Sarah Palin rejoins Fox News|date=June 13, 2013|first=Mackensie|last=Weinger|work=Politico|accessdate=July 18, 2014}}</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by atheist Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}

==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== See Also ==
* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==
* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News official website]

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

[[Category:Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Fox News Channel

2014-12-15T23:46:38Z

DRomnik: updated statistics: preview.tinyurl.com/nt887m5

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. The average age of its viewership is 74 years old, and even 79 years old for its [[O'Reilly Factor]]. Much of Fox News Channel is self-serving "happy talk," telling its elderly audience what it wants to hear, or selling O'Reilly's latest book.

The Fox News Channel heavily promotes [[RINO Backers]] -- commentators who may appear to be [[conservative]] but side with [[RINO]]s just when it matters most. Examples include [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Rush Limbaugh]], who savaged [[Todd Akin]] for making a [[pro-life]] statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against [[pro-life]] Republican candidates.

Even pundit [[Sarah Palin]] is too [[conservative]] for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,<ref>"[[Sarah Palin]]: 'Fox canceled my interviews.''" [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/sarah-palin-fox-cancelled-my-interviews-133729.html]</ref> and then refused to renew her contract at the end of 2012. Fox negotiated a new contract five months later.<ref name=politico/>

More generally, the Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[liberals]] on most political issues. The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]]. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative [[Republican]]s, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted [[John McCain]] and [[Chris Christie]] while excluding their more [[conservative]] primary opponents. It drifted further from the [[Conservative Movement|conservative movement]] by petulantly declaring that [[conservative]] [[Newt Gingrich]] would not be accepted back.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ailes-newt-cant-come-back-to-fox-120421.html</ref>

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and [[Roger Ailes]], who perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. [[Mainstream media]] "[[political correctness]]" was banished. As an example, Fox news [[anchor]]s call [[terrorist]]s what they are, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived [[liberal bias]] everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html [[New York Times]], January 9, 2010]</ref> But the profit motive may cause some of the hostility Fox News has to the [[conservative]] positions on important social issues.

Indeed, for over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing [[NBC]], [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[The New York Times]], and the rest of running a liberal [[propaganda]] machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===
Fox News is accused of being blatantly biased towards the right, during its supposedly non-partisan news reports. These false accusations stem from alleged injection of opinion in news stories, selectively preventing liberals a chance to be represented on the channel, and support for high ranking Republican Party members. Opponents to this theory cite the fact that Fox News parent company News Corp. overwhelmingly donates campaign contributions to Democrats <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/fox-news-parent-company-funneling-money-to-dems/ Fox News parent co. funneling money to Dems? WND.com, July 22, 2013]</ref> and the network employs the following [[liberal]]s:

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Dennis Kucinich]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Santita Jackson]]
*[[Simon Rosenberg]]
*[[Howard Kurtz]]
*[[James Carville]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Fox News Canada ==
Liberals have successfully painted Fox News as being blocked in [[Canada]] because of laws against lying, the premise is false. While they don't operate in Canada because of the legal tactics of direct competitor and wholly-owned government entity [[CBC|Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]] (CBC), Fox News does broadcast their channel by selling programs to Canadian third party independent media firms like Bell, Rogers and 20 other companies. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html Where in the World is FOX?, Fox News, march 1, 2011]</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fringe views versus Fox News ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Obama Administration versus Fox News ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

==Fox News versus Conservatives==
Popular opinion programming is skewed in favor of voices from establishment Republican, [[RINO]] members. This is most evident with their guest speakers such as [[Karl Rove]]. You'll never here Fox use the words liberal Republican or RINO. The most liberal members of the Republican party are labelled moderates. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/26/paul-make-key-stop-in-maine-with-state-gop-split-between-libertarians-and/?intcmp=latestnews Fox News calls Liberal Republican Susan Collins a Moderate]</ref> Fox News will occasionally follow stories about the [[Tea Party|Tea Party movement]] however they prefer to air the liberal side prominently, airing outright lies from liberals. [[Rush Limbaugh]] claimed Fox News wouldn't let him talk about immigration issues and preferred to control the narrative, also known as [[censorship]]. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/rush-limbaugh-accuses-fox-news-of-trying-to-censor-him-quite-telling/ RUSH LIMBAUGH ACCUSES FOX NEWS OF TRYING TO CENSOR HIM: ‘QUITE TELLING’, The Blaze.com, July 2, 2013]</ref> Republican RINO leadership such as [[John McCain]], [[Lindsey Graham]] and others love the spotlight of a camera and Fox News is there for them.

Fox News makes sure to hammer conservative guests. In September 2013, Fox's Chris Wallace claimed that establishment Republicans gave him opposition research against conservative [[Ted Cruz]] in his fight to defund [[Obamacare]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/22/foxs-chris-wallace-republicans-feeding-me-opposition-research-against-ted-cruz/ Fox’s Chris Wallace: Republicans Feeding Me Opposition Research Against Ted Cruz, WeaselZippers.com, September 22, 2013]</ref> Wallace has refused calls for him to release names. Nearly every host and guest, with the exception of [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Laura Ingraham]], spread the establishment surrender message that the GOP can't win the defunding fight.

In the aftermath for the November 5th, 2013 race for governor, many Fox articles speak about RINO [[Chris Christie]] and the implications of his victory. Nothing at all about [[Ken Cuccinelli]] being abandoned by the establishment D.C. GOP despite a strong focus from talk radio. Cuccinelli almost pulled off the upset victory, yet no Fox coverage.

After David Brat knocked off House Majority leader [[Eric Cantor]], Fox News commentators took to the air with glum faces of disbelief and dour reactions. Brit Hume said the David Brat win will help Democrats and hurt the GOP. <ref>[http://twitchy.com/2014/06/10/brit-hume-says-dave-brat-win-will-hurt-gop-without-immigration-reform/ Brit Hume says Dave Brat win will hurt GOP without immigration reform, Twitchy.com, June 10, 2014]</ref>

The news all over the conservative sphere talks about how the GOP used voter fraud, lies, and Democrats, in a Republican primary runoff to defeat Chris McDaniels in [[Mississippi]]. Fox News gave the controversy barely a mention the day after and nothing since. This despite story after story of fraud, race-baiting robocalls and fliers unearthed. One county with a 1,000 illegal ballots cast and 9 other counties refusing the McDaniel campaign from looking at the voter books. The [[Thad Cochran]] campaign is pressing to certify the election as soon as possible, preventing McDaniels from his legal right to pursue election integrity.

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates. --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

In a December 2013 interview by Hollywood Reporter, Ailes was talking about MSNBC no longer being in the news business and then said,
{{cquote| “For [[CNN]] to also throw in the towel and announce they’re out of the news business is quite interesting.”}}

This upset rival CNN President [[Jeff Zucker]] greatly and he lashed back that the GOP runs Fox News. <ref>[http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2014/01/10/zucker-gop-being-run-from-fox-news-headquarters-n1777255 Zucker: GOP being run from Fox News headquarters, Townhall.com, January 11, 12014]</ref>

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the G. W. Bush [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

Palin left in January 2013 looking to take her message to a "larger audience", but returned as a political commentator under a new contract in June 2013.<ref name=politico>{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-palin-fox-news-contributor-92747.html|title=Sarah Palin rejoins Fox News|date=June 13, 2013|first=Mackensie|last=Weinger|work=Politico|accessdate=July 18, 2014}}</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by atheist Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}

==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== See Also ==
* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==
* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News official website]

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

[[Category:Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2014-12-15T17:28:47Z

DRomnik: Undo revision 1123525 by SamHB (talk) listen, evolutionist: 2% times 50 is 100%, evolution is false; go to wikipedia if you don't believe the truth

[[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-evolution 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 one of the 50 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 2% 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 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is 0% (meaning that it is completely false).
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation. Moreover, some non-creationists claim that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, that is, beauty is a human concept. This is not true because many animals, such as elephants, have been seen to respect beauty (albeit in their own way).
# Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Maybe it might just be because of global warming. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely. Also, if global warming is man made, then the earth should've supposedly been cooler millions of ago. Cold enough that animals could not have survived. Therefore, either evolution or global warming must be false (or both, which is the most logical scenario).
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.
# More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a [[Great Flood|massive ancient flood]] is historically recorded by every culture. Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude. Yet mammals cannot survive large floods. It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.
# Evolutionists hold that, over time, new species can be created and existing ones destroyed. However, every animal from Noah's Ark is still alive today.
# 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.[[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.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.

===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 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 words, 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 of 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.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no similar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===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.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>

== 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]]

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}}
{{Counterexamples}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Logic of possibility]]
*[[Postmodern science]]

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2014-12-15T03:05:40Z

DRomnik: Undo revision 1123163 by SamHB (talk) 2 times 50 is 100

[[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-evolution 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 one of the 50 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 2% 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 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is 0% (meaning that it is completely false).
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation. Moreover, some non-creationists claim that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, that is, beauty is a human concept. This is not true because many animals, such as elephants, have been seen to respect beauty (albeit in their own way).
# Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Maybe it might just be because of global warming. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely. Also, if global warming is man made, then the earth should've supposedly been cooler millions of ago. Cold enough that animals cold not have survived. Therefore, either evolution or global warming must be false (or both, which is the most logical scenario).
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.
# More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a [[Great Flood|massive ancient flood]] is historically recorded by every culture. Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude. Yet mammals cannot survive large floods. It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.
# Evolutionists hold that, over time, new species can be created and existing ones destroyed. However, every animal from Noah's Ark is still alive today.
# 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.[[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.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.

===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 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 words, 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 of 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.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no similar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===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.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>

== 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]]

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}}
{{Counterexamples}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Logic of possibility]]
*[[Postmodern science]]

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

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

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

Conservative of the Year 2014

2014-12-14T21:40:11Z

DRomnik: nominated bill o'reilly

Nominations are open for Conservative of the Year 2014. Please make your nominations here:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!scope="col"|Tentative Rank
!Name
! class="unsortable"|Achievements
! class="unsortable" |Comments
|-
|1
|[[Nigel Farage]]
|For taking a stand against the dilution of British values by excessive immigration.
|
|-
|2
|David Brat
|Achieved the upset of the decade by defeating, in a landslide, the House Majority Leader in his own primary.
|
|-
|3
|[[Scott Walker]]
|Brought [[conservative]] prosperity to the formerly [[liberal]] [[Wisconsin]], and then won reelection as governor by a landslide despite predictions of a close race.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/wi/wisconsin_governor_walker_vs_burke-4099.html</ref>
|Will he run for president in 2016?
|-
|4
|[[Greg Abbott]]
|In becoming the next [[conservative]] governor of Texas, Abbott fended off -- and trounced -- incredibly vile attacks by the [[pro-abort]]s which culminated in a wheelchair advertisement against him, which even some on the Left found to be appalling. He then won by a landslide of more than 20 points.
|
|-
|5
|Kris Kobach
|
|
|-
|6
|Tom Cotton
|
|
|-
|7
|[[Tim Scott]]
|African American U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who won reelection by adhering to [[conservative]] principles
|
|-
|8
|[[Judicial Watch]]
|This organization has doggedly pursued the Obama administration with great success. Their lawsuits have uncovered [[IRS]] abuse, redacted Fast & Furious documents, as well as Benghazi details.
|
|-
|9
|Cliven Bundy
|Stood up to the federal government when it tried to illegally seize his cattle grazing land.
|
|-
|10
|George P. Mitchell
|Father of [[Fracking]], Mitchell revolutionized oil and gas extraction from shale rock formations. In 2014, America is challenging [[OPEC]] as the leading producer of hydrocarbons. Domestic oil production is at a 30 year high and real energy independence is within reach. Mitchell passed onto the [[Lord]] in 2013.
|Mitchell's ingenuity exposes two fraudulent Obama statements; ''"We can't just drill our way to lower gas prices," and ''"You didn't build that." ''
|-
|11
|[[Mia Love]]
|Overcoming the intense opposition by [[liberals]] to black conservative women, she was elected to Congress in a district previously held by a [[Dem]].
|For an encore, she could win the Senate seat held by [[RINO]] [[Orrin Hatch]], and she could go further after that.
|-
|12
|Inhabitants of [[Crimea]]
|Voted to join Conservative [[Russia]]
|
|-
|13
|[[Germany]]
|Continues to reject [[same-sex marriage]] and, with a [[conservative]] spirit at home and abroad, emerged victorious over same-sex marriage nations in the [[World Cup]].<ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2014/07/world-cup-germany</ref>
|
|-
|14
|[[Texas]] [[GOP]]
|stood up against the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing the right to [[conversion therapy]]
|
|-
|15
|[[Christmas]] shoppers
|Rejected [[Black Friday]] in greater numbers this year, handing a setback to the attempt to secularize [[Thanksgiving Day]].
|
|-
|15
|[[Bill O'Reilly]]
|For relentlessly and tirelessly fighting against the [[War on Christmas]]. He has also exposed reality to atheists attempting to secularize other Christian holidays.
|
|-
|}

== See also ==

*[[Conservative of the Year 2013]]
*[[Conservative of the Year 2012]]
*[[Conservative of the Year 2011]]
*[[Conservative of the Year 2010]]
*[[Conservatives of the Decade, 2009]]
*[[Essay:Conservatives of the Decade]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

MS NOW

2014-12-13T01:38:34Z

DRomnik: clarified a couple sentences

[[Image:April 2nd MSNBC.png|right]]
'''MSNBC''' (stylized '''msnbc''') is a [[liberal propaganda]] 24-hour cable "news" channel and website aligned with the [[Democrat]] party. Jointly owned by [[Comcast]] and [[General Electric]], MSNBC is considered by many to be one of the most liberal cable news channels of all the [[mainstream media]]. For years, MSNBC trailed [[Fox News]] and [[CNN]] in the ratings. However, it has been beating CNN since the ratings for that network are in freefall. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/business/media/cnn-ratings-decline-stirs-worries.html</ref> It typically garners ratings that are just one-third those of the [[Fox News Channel]]. Some consider it to be the liberal counterpart to the conservative Fox News. In 2012, [[Microsoft]] fully divested itself from MSNBC resulting in a the creation of NBC news and NBCnews.com. <ref> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/msnbc-website-renamed-nbcnews-com-after-microsoft-split.html </ref> It is possible Microsoft divested due to MSNBC's [[liberal hypocrisy]] since they opined that "we wanted to show different perspectives."

The ''Daily Caller'' observed that MSNBC "might be trying a little too hard to push" its agenda: "MSNBC duped: Network runs satirical fake news," and that wasn't the first time.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/05/msnbc-duped-network-runs-satirical-fake-news-from-daily-kos-as-a-real-story/</ref>

The MSNBC channel was started in 1996 as a joint venture between [[Microsoft]] and [[NBC]]. On December 23, 2005, ending a partnership that had soured long before, Microsoft and NBC announced that they would dissolve their joint ownership of the cable news channel, with NBC taking control. NBC completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel, with an 82% stake.<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30610F93E540C778EDDAB0994DD404482]</ref> The joint venture with Microsoft has come to an end.<ref>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/microsoft-nbc-dissolve-msnbccom-joint-venture/article4418455/</ref>

On January 28, 2011 Comcast, America's largest cable operator, purchased NBC Universal, which includes MSNBC, from former parent company General Electric. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/business/media/01deal.html New York Times; With Deal, G.E. Clears Path to Sale of NBC]</ref> <ref>[http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101028/ARTICLE/10281045/2055/NEWS?p=2&tc=pg Sarasota Herald-Tribune; Corporate Report]</ref><ref> http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/done-deal-fcc-department-of-justice-approve-comcast-nbc-universal-acquisition_b48942 </ref> Comcast acquired a 51-percent stake in NBC Universal, creating a $30-billion business that would include broadcast, cable networks, movie studios and theme parks. <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110118/bs_nm/us_nbc_comcast_13 </ref> Some liberals fear that Comcast might turn into a more conservative outlet. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/09/socialist-senator-wants-comcast-nbc-deal-blocked-due-olbermanns-suspe</ref> <ref>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/6/145630/235</ref> Some critics and supporters of [[Keith Olbermann]] blame Comcast for his firing from MSNBC. In addition, on July 2012, Microsoft also dropped MSNBC from its ownership, although it was still allowed to retain the name.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/microsoft-nbc-news-dissolve-msnbc-joint-venture_n_1675071.html</ref>

MSNBC is blatantly [[Communist]]. One of their anchors, [[Melissa Harris-Perry]], was featured in an MSNBC promotional video explaining that children "belong to whole communities" instead of their parents. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/09/critics-slam-msnbc-hosts-claim-that-kids-belong-to-community-not-parents/</ref> The promo is part of the Marxist "Forward" (MSNBC refers to it as "Lean Forward") campaign that has been going on since the late 19th century. <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/</ref>

MSNBC adopted the slogan "lean forward" which appears onscreen, which proves that the network decided to stop hiding their blatant liberal and communist bias from viewers.
== State Run ==
Publicly, the channel claims to be a non-biased, journalist driven news network. In reality, they are Democrat-aligned to the point that they are perceived as the press Secretary for the [[Obama Administration]]. On several occasions, Obama Administration officials have stated their public support for MSNBC.

Opinion-driven news is common and a successful formula at Fox News. MSNBC opinion news includes attacking Republicans relentlessly (and with no factual basis) and promoting or whitewashing Democrat politicians. Their remarks are so outlandish, choke full of proven lies and mean spirited that their TV hosts often get suspended from the air.

== Low Ratings ==
The MSNBC network has perennially had very low ratings. In 2002, the network was regularly beaten in the ratings by [[CNN Headline News]]. The CEO of Microsoft once even admitted that he wouldn't have started MSNBC knowing what he knew later.<ref>http://news.com.com/2100-1023-268073.html</ref> In June of 2006, [[CNN]] co-founder Reese Schoenfeld told journalist Don Kaplan that "Everybody compares MSNBC to Fox and CNN - when its real competition is Headline News". Schoenfeld pointed out that the ratings for MSNBC and Headline News are roughly the same, about 300,000 viewers on average and that "by comparison, Fox and CNN regularly average three or four times as many viewers." Kaplan even joked that "the running joke in TV news is Fox and CNN are news channels with websites, but MSNBC is a website with a cable channel".<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5891</ref>

Shock jock Don Imus's radio show ''Imus in the Morning'' was simulcast on MSNBC for over ten years. During this time, the program become well-known for displaying offensive commentary. However, MSNBC continued to support the show. In April of 2007, the network sparked outrage when during a broadcast of ''Imus in the Morning'', Don Imus and another MSNBC staff member made remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, considered to be both racist and sexist. Initially, MSNBC refused to cancel the show. After sponsors started withdrawing their advertisements from the show, MSNBC canceled the simulcast of ''Imus in the Morning''.

== Liberal Bias ==
MSNBC has been criticized regarding the channel's [[liberal]] slant. The media watchdog group the Media Research Center<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp About Media Research Center] www.mediaresearch.org</ref> has cited MSNBC shows by [[Keith Olbermann]], [[Dan Abrams]] and [[Chris Matthews]] in its criticism of the network's bias reporting. Among the networks daily lineup, liberals include Matthews, [[Ed Schultz]], [[Rachel Maddow]], [[Melissa Harris-Perry]], [[Lawrence O'Donnell]], and [[Chris Hayes]]. [[Joe Scarborough]], a moderate republican, is the sole conservative voice with a show on the network. Having several liberals and one conservative is clearly not balanced.

Olbermann has denounced President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] and the [[Republican Party]], calling the latter a "terrorist organization". He has called on President Bush and Vice President [[Dick Cheney|Cheney]] to resign.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/</ref>
Olbermann has conducted post-debate interviews of Republican presidential candidates and led live coverage of presidential primaries. In the February 2008 issue of ''Men's Journal'' magazine, a senior executive at MSNBC stated that Olbermann "runs MSNBC" and that "because of his success, he's in charge" of the network.<ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermann_talks_office_politics_other_politics_74648.asp</ref> Olbermann has since left the network and returned to sports journalism at [[ESPN]]

The [[left-wing]] advocacy group Media Matters for America<ref> [http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters for America homepage] www.mediamatters.org</ref> has criticized the MSNBC's commitment to promoting a left-wing agenda since the channel has had shows hosted by [[Libertarian|left-libertarian]] [[Tucker Carlson]] and former moderate [[Republican]] Congressman [[Joe Scarborough]]. Ironically, on August 16, 2007 Scarborough revealed an incident in which people in the MSNBC newsroom ceaselessly booed [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush|Bush]] during a State of the Union address.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14899/print</ref>
[[Image:Msnbc dem.jpg|right|150px]]
In the past, MSNBC shows have featured [[Mitch Albom]], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Phil Donahue]], [[Bill Moyers]], [[Maury Povich]], and [[Michael Savage]], among others. That varied programming was gradually reduced as MSNBC veered more [[leftist]] in its point-of-view. Among MSNBC's 2008 lineup, [[Patrick Buchanan]] was perhaps the most conservative voice.

In 2003, in an apparent effort to appear more balanced, MSNBC fired talk-show host Phil Donahue. An internal memo read, in part, "Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." <ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004</ref>
<ref>http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/24/1446244</ref>
<ref>http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html</ref>

On November 5, 2007, the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that the cable news channel was in serious discussions with [[Rosie O'Donnell]] to have a prime-time show on the network. Under one scenario, O'Donnell would be given the 9 p.m. slot where she would compete with ''Larry King Live'' on [[CNN]] and ''Hannity & Colmes'' on the [[Fox News Channel]]. Her show would replace ''Live with Dan Abrams'', a low-rated program that only recently replaced ''Scarborough Country''.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05cnd-msnbc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref> The deal later fell through as O'Donnell leaked information about the agreement without MSNBC's permission.

Later in November of 2007, the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, flat out admitted that the network has a left-wing liberal bias. In a ''New York Times'' article, he said that "it happened naturally" and that "there is a Go for it" mentality when it comes to pushing the liberal agenda among the MSNBC staff.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin</ref>

Continuing its offensive against the [[Bush administration]] and its reposition as a left-wing "news" outlet, in December of 2007, the network ran a series titled ''Bush League Justice'' with the explicit purpose of attacking the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Justice Department]] under the presidency of [[George W. Bush]].

In October 2010, MSNBC has publicly acknowleged its liberalism in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward," <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39507182/ns/business-media_biz/</ref> <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/media/05adco.html?_r=1</ref> <ref>http://theweek.com/article/index/207856/msnbcs-new-slogan-what-does-it-even-mean</ref> <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkinYM4EPy0</ref> following several years in which many observers noted a leftward shift in the channel's programming <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/study-nbc-news-doesnt-fol_n_139162.html</ref> <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html</ref> <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=print</ref>. As a result, NBC Universal and Microsoft is considering changing the name of the less partisan msnbc.com, a separate news company, to prevent confusion with the liberal TV network, MSNBC <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/media/07msnbc.html</ref>. Some of the NBC News correspondents and producers, who attempt to be straightforward reporters, say they are embarrassed to be associated with the liberal cable outlet and fear being “tainted” by association with it <ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39332</ref>. The situation became more apparent when NBC News decided to keep Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw away from MSNBC during the November 2, 2010 midterm election coverage <ref>http://mediaconfidential.blogspot.com/2010/10/nbc-news-separates-itself-from-partisan.html</ref>.

In July 2013, former MSNBC senior producer Jeff Cohen attacked MSNBC for being what he called the “official network of the [[Obama]] White House.” <ref> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/08/former-producer-rips-msnbc-as-obamas-official-network</ref>

==The MSNBC – White House Conneciton==
During coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill, Democrat party apparatchik Mika Brzezinski, who is also an anchor of the MSNBC show Morning Joe, worked with the White House to distribute propaganda falsely claiming that Obama was doing an effective job managing the problem. Brzezinski, who is the daughter of NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski from the failed Carter administration, admitted on the air that "I have a file that I've been working on with the White House."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/06/21/mika-admits-im-working-white-house-oil-spill-talking-points#ixzz2PpmYB7O3</ref>

==The MSNBC – Media Matters Connection==
[[Media Matters for America]] is a very popular source of information within MSNBC’s prime time lineup. Some might argue [[MSNBC]] is a defacto mouth piece for the organization..<ref>[http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07/12/media-matters-propaganda-watch-the-tax-exempt-research-department-of-msnbc-martin-bashir-edition/ Media Matters Propaganda Watch: The Tax-Exempt Research Department of MSNBC, Martin Bashir Edition]</ref> In prime time alone, since 2005 Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on the network nearly 200 times. Media Matters has been particularly popular with MSNBC’s producers during the last 2 years.
Below are some interesting tid bits about Media Matters and its growing relationship with MSNBC’s prime time programming:

* 197 guest appearances and/or on-air mentions on MSNBC’s prime time since January 2005
* Of the roughly 390 broadcast evenings on MSNBC since July 2010, Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on air 26% of the possible broadcast evenings (1 out of every 4 days).
* In 2011, on average, a Media Matters representative appeared on MSNBC at least once per week
* [[Eric Boehlert]] has been the most popular Media Matters representative on MSNBC, accounting for 43% of all Media Matters appearances on the cable network
* [[The Ed Show]] is the most popular show for Media Matters representatives, accounting for 72 Media Matters guest appearances since 2009<ref>[http://www.nexis.com Search and analysis on MSNBC's primetime transcripts via Nexis.com]</ref>

== See also ==
* [[NBC]]
* [[Liberal media]]
* [[Keith Olbermann]]
* [[Chris Matthews]]
* [[Pat Buchanan]]
* [[Rachel Maddow]]

==External Links==
* [http://msnbc.msn.com Official Site]
* [http://www.setstudio.com/pages/msnbc/ Photos of the MSNBC studio]
* [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/11/16/msnbc-president-admits-lineup-tilts-leftward MSNBC President Admits: Lineup Tilts Leftward]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left]

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

[[Category: Media]]
[[Category: Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Liberal Media]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Microsoft]]
[[Category:Censorship]]

Richard Stallman

2014-12-13T01:33:20Z

DRomnik: /* Stallman's political and religious views */ elaborated on his opposition to christianity and religon

'''Richard M. Stallman''' ('''RMS''') is the founder of the [[GNU]] project and the [[Free Software Foundation]]. He is the brains behind the [[GNU]] General Public License (GPL). The GNU GPL is used in the [[GNU/Linux]] operating system, and in other popular software. Stallman was part of MIT's [[Artificial Intelligence Laboratory]] in the 1970s, where he did a lot of creative computer programming (which he and his friends called "[[hacking]]").

He conceived of a notion of "[[free software]]" where the software is free as in "free speech", as opposed to "free beer", as he explains it. It is formally licensed as an alternative to the [[public domain]] and to other free licenses. He as actively promoted forming a worldwide community of programmers and software users who can all equally share the benefits of new and improved software donated to the community, a sort of [[communism]] of software development, enforced through a subversive use of "[[Open source#Copyleft|copyleft]]" copyright licenses.

== Stallman's political and religious views ==
Stallman is also an [[atheist]], and his website espouses a number of radical [[liberal]] political viewpoints; while he refers to himself as "Liberal", some, in fact, suspect that he is a [[communist]], as he even criticized [[Barack Obama]] for being too [[conservative]]<ref>[http://stallman.org/archives/2009-sep-dec.html#10%20December%202009%20%28Obama%20is%20no%20Liberal%29 "Obama is no Liberal"]</ref>. He has also dealt with the communist governments of [[Cuba]] and [[Venezuela]], seeking to convince them to utilize open source software. He also openly states his opposition to Christianity (and religion in all of its forms), an action condemned by many.

== Blasphemy ==
Stallman sees fit to blaspheme the Lord and His Church, claiming to be a saint, Saint IGNUcius, in his mock Church of Emacs.<ref>http://stallman.org/saint.html</ref>

== External links ==
[http://www.stallman.org Stallman's website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Stallman, Richard}}

[[category:Atheists]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Computer Science]]
[[Category:Linux]]
[[Category:Operating Systems]]
[[Category:Free Software]]
[[Category:Linux]]
[[Category:Software]]
[[Category:Open Source]]
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2014-12-13T01:22:20Z

DRomnik: added a counterexample; since 2% times 50 is 100% and the indisputable counterexamples, the probability of evolution being true is 0%

[[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-evolution 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 one of the 50 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 2% 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 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is 0% (meaning that it is completely false).
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation. Moreover, some non-creationists claim that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, that is, beauty is a human concept. This is not true because many animals, such as elephants, have been seen to respect beauty (albeit in their own way).
# Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Maybe it might just be because of global warming. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely. Also, if global warming is man made, then the earth should've supposedly been cooler millions of ago. Cold enough that animals cold not have survived. Therefore, either evolution or global warming must be false (or both, which is the most logical scenario).
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.
# More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a [[Great Flood|massive ancient flood]] is historically recorded by every culture. Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude. Yet mammals cannot survive large floods. It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.
# Evolutionists hold that, over time, new species can be created and existing ones destroyed. However, every animal from Noah's Ark is still alive today.
# 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.[[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.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.

===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 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 words, 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 of 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.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no similar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===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.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>

== 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]]

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}}
{{Counterexamples}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Logic of possibility]]
*[[Postmodern science]]

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2014-12-12T00:29:24Z

DRomnik: expanded on some points; removed some undetected vandalism

[[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-evolution 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 one of the 49 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 2% 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 less than 2%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation. Moreover, some non-creationists claim that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, that is, beauty is a human concept. This is not true because many animals, such as elephants, have been seen to respect beauty (albeit in their own way).
# Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Maybe it might just be because of global warming. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely. Also, if global warming is man made, then the earth should've supposedly been cooler millions of ago. Cold enough that animals cold not have survived. Therefore, either evolution or global warming must be false (or both, which is the most logical scenario).
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.
# More than 70% of Earth is covered with water, devastating flooding is frequent, and a massive ancient flood is historically recorded by every culture. Limestone and fossils exist at the highest peaks of altitude. Yet mammals cannot survive large floods. It is impossible to increase the period of time to permit evolution without also increasing the likelihood of extinction of mammals due to large flooding.
# 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.[[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.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.

===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 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 words, 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 of 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.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no similar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===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.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>

== 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]]

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}}
{{Counterexamples}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Logic of possibility]]
*[[Postmodern science]]

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

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

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

Frederick Douglass

2014-12-11T22:52:45Z

DRomnik: clarified his political status

[[image:Freddouglas.jpg|150px|thumb|Frederick Douglass]]
'''Frederick Douglass''' (1818-1895), born as Frederick Baily, was raised as a [[slave]]. He escaped to [[Massachusetts]] at age 20 and changed his name to Frederick Douglass in order to conceal himself from slave catchers. He was a member of the [[Republican Party]].

He developed marvelous [[debate|debating]] and [[oration|oratory]] skills to expose the injustices of slavery. [[William Lloyd Garrison]], publisher of the [[abolition|abolitionist]] Liberator Newspaper, hired him.

Douglass published a best-selling [[autobiography]], but then felt he had to flee to [[England]] to avoid being caught by slave catchers. Reformer Daniel O'Connell formed a friendship with him there.

Upon his return to New York, he founded the "North Star" newspaper.

His motto was "Right is of no sex - Truth is of no color - God is the Father of us all, and we are all Brethren."

Douglass wrote, "I loved all mankind, slaveholder not excepted, though I abhorred slavery more than ever. I saw the world in a new light ... I gathered scattered pages of the Bible from the filthy street gutters, and washed and dried them, that ... I might get a word or two of wisdom from them."

{{DEFAULTSORT:Douglass, Frederick}}

==see also==
* [[Abolitionism]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Abolitionists]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Republicans]]

Jeff Bezos

2014-12-11T22:44:27Z

DRomnik: added article

Jeff Bezos is the the founder and CEO of [[Amazon.com]].

Tails (operating system)

2014-12-11T22:37:35Z

DRomnik: doesn't ''only'' work with DVDs

'''Tails''' [[operating system]] ('''TAILS OS''') is short for '''The Amnestic Incognito Live System.''' It is actually a host of [[computer]] OS tools-utilities to help you remain [[anonymous]]. It runs on [[Linux]], but uses a nice [[GUI]] so you will have to click around in it to figure out how to do things. It has a [[free software]] version of [[Microsoft Office]] called [[Open Office]]. For those of you already familiar with [[Tor]], Tails also mates Tor with a read only [[DVD]] what we call a “live CD” or [[USB]] that boots and runs your system under a special secure and anonymous version of [[Debian]] [[Linux]] operating system called Amnestic.

Tails is basically a “throw away” operating system. One of the things that has been exposed, time and time again is that “…adversaries with global reach…” [[surveillance|track computer use]] in a myriad of ways. Often they will put tracking [[cookies]] or markers on your computer, loaded from [[website]]s you visit. There has been a documented case of this happening to [[James Wesley Rawles]]<ref>[[James Wesley Rawles]], [[American Redoubt]]: [[The Survival Blog]] http://survivalblog.com/2012/03/important-message-from-jwr-the-fbis-cookie-caper-and-the-vpn-imperative.html Accessed December 6, 2014</ref> [[The Survival Blog]] users. These then “report back” everywhere you go on the [[Internet]]. This is one way Tor can be circumvented. If your computer is already compromised (we call it “owned”) then nothing else you do can keep you secure. Once they have a tracking cookie or [[trojan horse|hackware]] on your computer they can then build a very expansive history of your Internet activities. Tails goes a long way to preventing that. [James Wesley Rawles suggestion on disabling cookies is “old school” and will not work against any decent [[hacker]], since half the time we don’t use cookies. I have already showed that [[VPN]]s are only useful in protecting your [[anonymity]] if the [[VPN]] operator is willing to go to jail to for you. They are not<ref>https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/39788/how-can-you-be-caught-using-private-vpn-when-theres-no-logs-about-who-you-are Accessed December 6, 2014</ref>. Here is the story of hacker named Cody Krestsinger known online as Recursion now in jailed and tracked down through the [[United Kingdom]] based HideMyAss VPN service because he defaced an [[FBI]] website. Do not trust VPN services. Part of the answer to this ungodly, [[unconstitutional]], [[unethical]] behavior is Tails and [[Tor]].

Tails is a “[[read only]]” operating system (OS) that works from a DVD (or another external medium, such as a USB Drive). This is critical. Tails is booted from a read only DVD (your throw away media) and only operates in RAM, it does not interact with your [[hard drive]] at all, actually it is specifically prevented from doing so. Thus when you power your machine down, every thing you do goes away. And this is important. You must power down, and hopefully keep your computer out of anyone’s hands for at least 2 minutes (120 seconds). We have become aware of a tactic where “adversaries” attempt to capture your computer quickly and then deep freeze the memory to try to later at the lab pull data (history, passwords other connections) from the RAM memory of the computer. They call it a “Cold Boot Attack.”<ref>https://tails.boum.org/doc/advanced_topics/cold_boot_attacks/index.en.html Accessed December 6, 2014</ref> This is why they “rush in” to seize computer equipment some times. This is why Tails tries to protect you, but you must shut it down, and hopefully keep it out of their hands for 120 seconds while your RAM cools. Tails Operating System does nearly every thing that is possible to remove any history of your activities. It actively wipes RAM, it stores nothing.

One reason Tails uses a bootable DVD, is that you can slip it into your work computer (or another computer), get on the Internet. You then can get on the Internet using [[Firefox]] with [[SSL Everywhere]], through Tor anonymous service and every other [[open source]] anonymity solution they can think of. Do what you need to do like post information that you want to share with [[American patriots]]. Then you “shutdown” your computer, Tails will do every thing it can to wipe memory and it even automatically ejects the DVD to remind you to take it. After you have done what you need to do, you can then boot back to your normal computer. If you want to kick it up a level, shred the DVD with Tails on it. That is why I call Tails plastic gloves for Internet use.

"Tails was specifically designed after several major news outlets sources were burned because the government hacked into the reporters computers to find out who was sharing information with them. “With Tails”, say the distro developers, “we provide a tongue and a pen protected by state-of-the-art [[cryptography]] to guarantee…basic [[human rights]] and allow [[journalist]]s worldwide to work and [[freedom of speech|communicate freely]] and without fear of reprisal.” Tails implements most open source technology that I know of to help you be as anonymous as possible. It has [[SSL Everywhere]], it uses a version of [[Firefox]] called [[Ice Weasel]]. It defaults to the use of Tor and allows the use of [[I2P]]. It is very careful not to use your computers hard drive for any thing and does everything in memory. If you want to work with files, you must use a USB [[thumb drive]] to save them too. No system is perfect, just because you have plastic gloves doesn’t mean you don’t think about the 10 [[OPSEC]] Commandments, or all the other stuff we have shown you and add in all the stuff you already know (your own grey matter). However again, we the [[American Redoubt]] IT guys (AmRD) are introducing the [[God]]-fearing [[Liberty]] forces to tools that you can use to fight your own Liberty Operation or communicate more anonymously."<ref>https://charlescarrollsociety.com/2014/02/12/amrd-t-a-i-l-s-plastic-gloves-for-your-computer-american-redoubt</ref>

==Quotes on the Needs for Tails OS due to Unconstitutional Police State Surveillance ==
* "The progress of [[science]] in furnishing the [[big government|government]] with means of [[espionage]] is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the [[Police state|government]], without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a [[jury]] the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the [[liberty]] of every man in the hands of every [[tyrant|petty officer]]' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. 1 To Lord Camden a far slighter intrusion seemed '[[subversive]] of all the comforts of society.' Can it be that the [[Constitution]] affords no protection against such invasions of [[Fourth Amendment|individual security]]?"
** [[Louis Brandeis]]''' (1856-1941), [[United States Supreme Court]] [[Associate Justice]] Dissenting, ''[[Olmstead v. United States]]'', 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

==See also==
* '''[[Censorship]]:''' [[Tools of censorship]], [[Censorability]], [[Fairness Doctrine]], [[Liberal censorship]], [[Media censorship]]
----
* '''[[Perpetual war|The Perpetual War]]:''' [[War on Drugs]], [[War on Terror]] and the [[Police state]]
* '''Domestic [[Mass surveillance|Mass Surveillance]] of Law-Abiding [[Citizen]]s:''' via [[Utah Data Center]], [[PRISM]], [[NSA]]-[[DHS]]-[[BATF]]-[[FBI]]-[[CIA]] and other [[Intelligence agency|Intelligence agencies]]' [[Computer surveillance]], [[Eavesdropping]], [[Data mining]], [[Spyware]], [[Wiretap]] - [[Roving wiretap]], [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]] of the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]], [[NSA warrantless surveillance controversy]], [[National security letter]], [[Patriot Act]], [[NDAA]], [[Executive Order]]s, [[United States Census]], [[Common Core]], "[[Stasi]]"-like [[secret police]] "[[If You See Something, Say Something]]" [[informant]]s, and other exponential expansion of the [[Police State]]
* '''[[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]]:''' [[Confiscation]] for [[Police]] [[budget deficit]] via [[RICO]]
* '''[[Mililtarization of police|Mililtarization of Police]]:''' [[SWAT]] and [[Pre-dawn raid|Pre-dawn]] [[No-knock raid]]s, [[Sneak and peek warrant]]
* '''[[War on Drugs]]:''' [[Addiction]] and [[Drug trafficking]] of the [[Drug cartel]]s, [[Mafia]], [[Gangs]], [[Drug dealer]]s, [[Hollywood values]] - [[Fashion industry values]] - [[Public school values]] - [[Professor values]]
* '''[[Computer crime|Computer Crime]] and [[Cyberwarfare]]:'''
** '''[[Hackers]]:''' [[China]], [[Russia]] and others
** [[Bradley Manning]] - [[Homosexual]] [[Hacker]] [[Traitor]] of [[State secret]]s
** [[Wikileaks]] and [[Julian Assange]] - [[Australia]]n [[leftist]] [[hacker]]
* '''Dangers of [[Social media|Social Media]]:''' Facebook, Twitter, [[Google|Google Plus]], [[YouTube]], [[Yahoo]]
* '''[[Big government|Big Government]]''': [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]
* '''[[Liberal totalitarianism|Liberal Totalitarianism]]'''

'''Contrast with:'''

* '''[[Security]] [[Software]] and [[Security-focused operating systems|Security-Focused Operating Systems]]''' to protect [[unalienable rights|unalienable]] [[Fifth Amendment]] - [[Fourth Amendment]] [[Right to Privacy]] ([[Internet privacy]], [[Information privacy]], [[Expectation of privacy]]) and [[Second Amendment]] - [[First Amendment]] ([[Freedom of information]] and [[Political freedom]]) rights against [[unconstitutional]] [[Gun control]] - [[Internet censorship]] [[Big government]] [[Police state]], [[hackers]], and "[[5 U.S.C. § 3331|all enemies, foreign and domestic]]" of [[American values|American]] [[liberty]].
** '''[[Anonymity]] with [[Tails (operating system)|Tails Operating System]]''': [[Linux]]-based with [[Tor (anonymity network)]], [[Firefox]] [[Iceweasel]] [[browser]], [[HTTPS Everywhere]] [[encryption]]
** '''[[Prism-break.org|Prism-Break.org]]''': Opt out of global data [[surveillance]] programs like [[PRISM]], [[ECHELON]], [[XKeyscore]] and [[Tempora]].<ref>"Help make [[mass surveillance]] of entire populations uneconomical! We all have an [[unalienable right]] to [[privacy]], which you can exercise today by [[encrypting]] your communications and ending your reliance on proprietary products and services."</ref>
** '''[[Open source|Open Source]] [[Free software]]''' not over-priced tracking by [[Microsoft]]-[[Apple]]-[[Google]]-[[Android]]
* '''[[Privacy search engines|Privacy Search Engines]]: [[Duck Duck Go]]''' and [[Ixquick]]: [[Privacy]]-oriented [[Search engine]]s instead of tracking by [[Google]], [[Yahoo]] and [[Bing]]
* '''[[Internet anonymity|Internet Anonymity]] - [[Right to be forgotten]] [[Pseudonymity]]''' ([[Pseudonym]]) using [[Anonymous web browsing]] with [[Tails]] and [[VPN]] ([[Virtual Private Network]]), [[HMA]], [[OpenVPN]] and [[IPsec]] , [[Proxy server]]s, [[Anonymizer]] ([[Anonymous proxies]])
** '''[[Mozilla Firefox]]''' with [[Browser extension]]s instead of [[Microsoft]] [[Internet Explorer]], [[Google Chrome]], [[Safari (web browser)]] and [[Opera (web browser)]]
** '''[[Browser security|Browser Security]]''' via [[HTTPS Everywhere]] ([[HTTPS]] ([[HTTP Secure]]) instead of [[Plaintext]] ([[Cleartext]]) [[HTTP]]; and [[NoScript]] to stop [[JavaScript]]
** '''[[Ad filtering|Ad Filtering]]''' ([[Privacy mode]] and [[Adblock Plus]] or [[Ghostery]]) to stop [[Ad tracking]] - [[Website visitor tracking]] via [[Geolocation]], [[Geotargeting]], [[Personally identifiable information]] and [[Device fingerprint]]s
* '''[[Internet safety|Internet Safety]], [[Computer security|Computer Security]] via [[Password strength]] and [[Password manager]]s''' via [[KeePass]] or [[LastPass]] and [[Antivirus]]-[[Firewall]]
* '''[[Secure communication|Secure Communication]]:'''
** '''[[E-mail privacy|E-mail Privacy]] and [[Email encryption|Email Encryption]]:''' [[Claws Mail]] or [[Enigmail]] or [[Kontact]] using [[Hushmail]] or [[MyKolab]], [[Anonymous remailer]], instead of tracking by [[Microsoft Outlook]], [[Mozilla Thunderbird]] using [[Yahoo! Mail]], [[Gmail]] [[iCloud]]
** '''[[Secure messaging|Secure Messaging]] and [[Off-the-Record Messaging]] via [[I2P]]''' [[Instant messaging]], [[Cryptocat]], [[Bitmessage]] instead of [[Skype]], [[Yahoo! Messenger]], [[Internet Relay Chat]], [[Google Plus]], Facebook
** '''[[Silent Phone]] with [[Silent Circle]]''' instead of [[Android]] or [[iPhone]] [[Smartphone]]
** '''[[OPSEC]]:''' "[[Loose lips sink ships]]"
* '''[[Encryption]]:''' [[Encryption software]], [[Disk encryption software]], [[LUKS]] or [[TrueCrypt]] instead of [[Microsoft]] [[BitLocker]], [[PGP]] and [[GNU Privacy Guard]], [[Data encryption]], [[Public-key encryption]], [[Cryptography]]-[[Cryptanalysis]]-[[Cryptology]]-[[Steganography]]
* '''[[Peer-to-peer|Peer-to-Peer]]:''' [[Sneakernet]], [[Friend-to-friend]], [[Darknet (file sharing)]], [[Anonymous P2P]] instead of [[BitTorrent]]
* '''[[Deep Web]] - [[Dark Internet]]:''' [[Tor]], [[AmRD]], [[Tor2web]], [[The Hidden Wiki]], [[Anonymous blog]]
* '''[[Cryptocurrency]]-[[Digital currency|Digital Currency]]-[[Alternative currency|Alternative Currency]]-[[Virtual currency|Virtual Currency]]: [[Bitcoin]]''' and [[Hard money]]-[[Precious metals]]-[[Tangibles]] versus [[PayPal]], [[Credit cards]] and [[inflation]]-prone [[Dollar (U.S.)|U.S. Dolars]]: [[Federal Reserve System]]'s [[Keynesian economics]] [[Ponzi scheme]] of [[Quantitative easing]]-[[Debt monetization]] [[devaluation]] of [[Fiat currency]] through [[Money supply]]-[[Treasury bill]]s bought mostly by [[China]] and [[Japan]]
----
* '''[[Privacy resources|Privacy Resources]]:'''
** ''[[Hologram of Liberty]]'' - The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government by [[Boston T. Party]] - [[Kenneth W. Royce]]
** ''[[One Nation, Under Surveillance]] - Privacy From the Watchful Eye'' by [[Boston T. Party]]
** ''[[How to Be Invisible]] - Protect Your Home, Your Children, Your Assets, and Your Life'', by [[J. J. Luna]]
** '''[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]''' and [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]], [[Oath Keepers]], [[Judicial Watch]]
** '''[[Freedom of Information Act]]''', [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act]] of 1986 and [[Privacy Act of 1974]]
** '''[[Edward J. Snowden]] Revelations''' of [[unconstitutional]] domestic spying on law-abiding [[American]] [[citizen]]s; [[GlobaLeaks]]
----
* '''[[Crypto-libertarianism]] [[Limited government]]''' implies:
* [[Conservative values]], [[American values]] - [[Small town values]], [[American Patriots]] and [[Bill of Rights]] [[liberty]]
** [[Capitalism]] and [[Free enterprise]]
** [[Family values]] and [[Parental rights]]: [[Sanctity of life]], [[Family]]-[[Marriage]], [[Homeschooling]] teaching [[Virtue]], [[Patriotism]], [[Duty]], and [[Self-reliance]]

==External Links==
* [https://tails.boum.org Tails - Privacy for anyone anywhere]
* [https://www.torproject.org [[Tor]] Project: Anonymity Online]
* https://charlescarrollsociety.com/2013/06/10/prism-yes-they-can
* https://charlescarrollsociety.com/2013/05/06/memo-to-the-police-state-progressives-please-let-his-people-go
* https://charlescarrollsociety.com/2012/09/15/no-knock-raid-a-great-video
* https://charlescarrollsociety.com/2014/02/12/amrd-t-a-i-l-s-plastic-gloves-for-your-computer-american-redoubt - [[Tails operating system]]
* https://charlescarrollsociety.com/2014/01/29/amrd-introducing-the-tor-browser-bundle/ - [[Tor browser]]
* http://survivalblog.com/five_letters_re_the_fbis_cookie_caper_and_the_vpn_imperative
* https://prism-break.org/en - "Opt out of global data surveillance programs like [[PRISM]], [[XKeyscore]] and [[Tempora]]."<ref>"Help make [[mass surveillance]] of entire populations uneconomical. We all have a [[right to privacy]], which you can exercise today by [[encrypt]]ing your communications and ending your reliance on proprietary services."</ref>
* https://www.eff.org - "Leading the fight against the [[NSA]]'s illegal [[mass surveillance]] program"<ref>"Organization formed in 1990 to maintain and enhance intellectual freedom, privacy, and other values of civil liberties and democracy in networked communications. Publishes newsletters, Internet Guidebooks and other documents, provides mailing lists and other online forums, and hosts a large electronic document archive. Contact: info@eff.org. 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110-1914. Tel: (415) 436-9333. Fax: (415) 436-9993. Executive Director: Sheryl Steele."</ref>
* https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard
* http://justdelete.me
* http://survivalblog.com/category/privacy-encryption/
* http://lifehacker.com/just-delete-me-is-a-massive-list-of-links-to-close-all-1245040101
* [http://epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html Online Guide to Privacy Resources]<ref>"EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, medical records privacy and the sale of consumer data. EPIC conducts litigation, sponsors conferences, produces reports, publishes the EPIC Alert and leads campaigns on privacy issues. For more information email: epic-info@epic.org, or contact EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Tel: (202) 483-1140. Executive Director: Marc Rotenberg."</ref>
* http://www.nocards.org - [[Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email]]<ref>"CAUCE is an all volunteer, entirely web-based organization, created by Netizens to advocate for a legislative solution to the problem of UCE (spam). CAUCE began as a discussion group called SPAM-LAW, formed of members who felt that legislation was necessary to stop spam from choking the life out of the Internet. In 1997 CAUCE proposed an amendment to the Federal statute which outlaws junk "faxes" (47 USC 227) to also prohibit junk e-mail, and since then has remained a pre-eminent voice in the anti-spam community. Email: comments@cauce.org. President: Edward Cherlin."</ref>

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

[[Category:Linux]]
[[Category:Open Source]]
[[Category:Operating Systems]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Survivalism]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[Category:Fourth Amendment]]
[[Category:Espionage]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Information technology]]