Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-27T13:50:58Z

DrDean: /* Really, Ken? */

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

== Really, Ken? ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-27T13:16:23Z

DrDean: /* Really, Ken? */

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-27T13:16:04Z

DrDean: /* Really, Ken? */

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

== Really, Ken? ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate of you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-09-27T06:39:40Z

DrDean:

'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''Witness''
|1985
|R
|Highlights the virtues of strong moral values, with more substance and excitement than ''High Noon''.
|$ 65,500,000
|-
|''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|Big screen adaptation of the classic conservative text.
|$ 4,563,873
|-
|''[[Spider-Man]]''
|2002
|PG-13
|Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
|$ 403,706,375
|-
|''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]''
|1956
|UR
|A science fiction condemnation of [[communism]], produced for only $420,000 and remade successfully in three additional movies.
|$ 2,500,000
|-
|''[[The Exorcist]]''
|1973
|R
|(''not for children'') - A portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]]. It broke the record for movie revenue.
|$ 441,071,011
|-
|''[[Dark Matter]]''
|2007
|R
|A candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.
|$ 30,041
|-
|''Miracle''
|2004
|PG
|Movie about the United States hockey team which won the gold medal in the 1980 Winter Olympics. Stresses the important of hard work, resiliency, selflessness and putting your best effort forward to reach an unseen goal.
|$ 64,445,708
|-
|''[[Gone With the Wind]]''
|1939
|UR
|Celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.
|$ 198,676,459
|-
|''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]''
|1959
|UR
|Celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].
|$ 17,300,000
|-
|''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''
|2008
|PG
|[[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].
|$ 7,690,545
|-
|''[[Hillary: The Movie]]''
|2008
|UR
|Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Indoctrinate U]]''
|2007
|UR
|Exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. <ref>[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]''
|2008
|PG
|Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].
|$ 33,451,479
|-
|''[[Beauty and the Beast]]''
|1991
|G
|A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since.
|$ 25,487,028
|-
|''[[Titanic]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues.
|$ 600,779,824
|-
|''The Lives of Others''
|2006
|R
|(''Not for children'') - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.
|$ 11,286,112
|-
|''[[The Sound of Music]]''
|1965
|UR
|Solid family entertainment.
|$ 158,671,368
|-
|''[[Chinatown]]''
|1974
|UR
|A thriller about the deceit surrounding water rights in southern California and LA's water system, removing most of the water from the central valley.
|$ 30,000,000 (world wide estimate)
|-
|''[[The Fountainhead]]''
|1949
|UR
|Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal starring in Ayn Rand's classic story of the right of the individual to produce on their own terms.
|Unknown
|-
|''The Undefeated''
|2011
|PG-13
|Documentary about [[Sarah Palin]]
|$ 100,085 (to date)
|-
|''Moses''
|1974
|PG
|Italian-British-American production which features [[Burt Lancaster]] playing [[Moses]] the lawgiver. Less flamboyant than Cecil B. Demille's movie The Ten Commandments and focuses more on the biblical figure of Moses. Originally a 6-part TV mini-series, but edited to make it a movie.
|-
|''[[The Ten Commandments]]''
|1956
|UR
|The definitive film portrayal of [[Exodus]].
|$ 65,500,000
|-
|''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]''
|1939
|UR
|A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Star Wars]]''
|1977-2005
|PG
|Simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.
|$460,998,007
|-
|''The Winning Team''
|1952
|UR
|[[Ronald Reagan]] stars as a baseball pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[King of Kings]]''
|1961
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Iron Eagle]]''
|1986
|PG-13
|
|$ 24,159,872
|-
|''[[On The Waterfront]]''
|1954
|UR
|[[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure. Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront. In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film. In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]]. Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.
|$ 9,600,000
|-
|''The Name of the Rose''
|1986
|R
|A mystery centered around the balance between faith and science, as well as debate over the role of poverty in religion and religious orders.
|$ 5,595,706
|-
|''[[Sergeant York]]''
|1941
|UR
|A young American soldier during WWI overcomes an unfounded religious objection to killing and becomes a war hero.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]''
|1940
|UR
|Stars [[Ronald Reagan]] as corageous football player George Gipp, who dies before an important game.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Ninotchka]]''
|1939
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Forbidden Planet]]''
|1956
|UR
|
|$ 3,000,000
|-
|''[[Rudy]]''
|1993
|PG
|A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up.
|$ 22,750,363
|-
|''[[The Prince of Egypt]]''
|1998
|PG
|A telling of the life of [[Moses]].
|$ 101,217,900
|-
|''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]''
|1955
|UR
|Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]''
|1963
|UR
|Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Red Dawn]]''
|1984
|PG-13
|
|$ 35,866,000
|-
|''[[Harry's War]]''
|1981
|PG
|Anti-IRS comedy.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Patriot]]''
|2000
|R
|A patriot fights for American freedom during the [[American Revolution]].
|$ 113,330,342
|-
|''[[Ladder 49]]''
|2004
|PG-13
|Shows the courageousness of firefighters.
|$ 74,541,707
|-
|''[[Rocky]]''
|1976
|PG
|A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges.
|$ 117,235,247
|-
|''[[October Sky]]''
|1999
|PG
|Four high school boys from a rural coal mining town, inspired by Sputnik, set out to build their own rockets and become rocket scientists.
|$ 32,481,825
|-
|''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
|2006
|PG
|Shows the horrors of slave trade.
|$ 21,208,358
|-
|''[[Bruce Almighty]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can successively do [[God]]'s job.
|$ 242,589,580
|-
|''[[World Trade Center]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]]
|$ 70,236,496
|-
|''[[Flight 93]]''
|2006
|PG-13
|Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[A Man For All Seasons]]''
|1966
|UR
|
|$ 20,000,000<ref>This figure is a worldwide gross.</ref>
|-
|''[[Chariots of Fire]]''
|1981
|PG
|
|$ 58,972,904
|-
|''[[One Foot In Heaven]]''
|1941
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
|1951
|UR
|
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Lost Weekend]]''
|1945
|UR
|Illustrates the dangers of alcohol abuse.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]''
|1962
|PG-13
|Anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]].
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Green Berets]]''
|1968
|G
|Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
|$ 11,000,000
|-
|''[[My Son John]]''
|1952
|UR
|A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
|Unknown
|-

|''[[True Lies]]''
|1994
|R
|Stars the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
|$ 146,261,000
|-
|''[[The Island]]''
|2005
|PG-13
|Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
|$ 35,799,026
|-
|''[[Evelyn]]''
|2002
|PG
|True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
|$ 1,483,975
|-
|''[[Shane]]''
|1953
|UR
|Western about defending a homesteading family.
|$ 20,000,000
|-
|''[[Lean on Me]]''
|1989
|PG-13
|A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/</ref>
|$ 31,906,454
|-
|''[[Hero]]''
|1992
|PG-13
|Even those with character flaws can do good.
|$ 19,487,173
|-
|''[[The Day of the Jackal]]''
|1973
|PG
|Celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The 6th Day]]''
|2000
|PG-13
|Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
|$ 34,543,701
|-
|''Ghost Busters''
|1984
|PG
|Fitting satire of an unfair (and likely liberal) professor, paganism, and an EPA regulator.
|$ 238,632,124
|-
|[[Facing the Giants]]
|2006
|PG
|Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.
|$ 10,178,331
|-
|''Flash of Genius''
|2008
|PG-13
|The intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.
|$ 3,744,790
|-
|''Oh, God!''
|1977
|PG
|Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.
|$ 41,687,243
|-
|''[[Courageous]]''
|2011
|PG-13
|Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.
|
|-
|''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]''
|1997
|R
|Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.
|$ 172,956,409
|-
|''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]''
|2001
|PG-13
|Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.
|$ 314,776,114
|-
|''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]''
|2002
|PG-13
|Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.
|$ 340,478,898
|-
|''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.
|$ 377,027,325
|-
|''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]''
|2003
|PG-13
|Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.
|$ 93,926,386
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]''
|2005
|PG
|Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.
|$ 291,709,845
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]''
|2008
|PG
|
|$ 141,621,490
|-
|''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]''
|2010
|PG
|
|$ 104,383,624
|-
|''Coach Carter''
|2005
|PG-13
|Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.
|$ 67,253,092
|-
|''[[The Seventh Sign]]''
|1988
|R
|Starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.
|$ 18,875,011
|-
|''[[Maafa21]]''
|2009
|UR
|This film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. <ref>[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]</ref>
|NA - DVD
|-
|''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]''
|1949
|UR
|A thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars.
|$ 3,225,000
|-
|''[[Escape from Hell]]''
|2000
|UR
|Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.
|NA - DVD
|-
|''[[Waiting for Superman]]''
|2010
|PG
|Documentary on the failed public school system.
|$ 6,410,257
|-
|''The Hurt Locker''
|2008
|R
|A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.
|$ 12,647,089
|-
|''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'')
|2001
|
|Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime.
|$ 10,890
|-
|''A Charlie Brown Christmas''
|1965
|G
|The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.
|NA - TV
|-
|''The Room''
|2003
|R
|A tragedy showing the corrosive effects of [[liberal values]] like [[alcoholism]] and [[adultery]], while reflecting the conservative traits of [[charity]], innovation (in banking) and support for small business.
|Unknown
|-
|''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]''
|2007
|UR
|Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]''
|1971
|G
|A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.
|$ 50,000,000
|-
|''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]''
|2011
|UR
|How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. <ref>[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]</ref>
|Unknown
|-
|''[[How Should We Then Live]]''
|1976
|UR
|Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.
|NA - TV
|-
|''[[Gattaca]]''
|1997
|PG-13
|A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: "They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home" (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space).
|$ 12,339,633
|-
|''The Lion King''
|1994
|G
|A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.
|$ 312,825,899
|-
|''Space Jam''
|1996
|PG
|Michael Jordan uses the help of beloved children's characters from the '50s (a simpler time in America's history) to beat back foreign invaders who wish to take away our freedoms.
|$ 90,443,603
|-
|''Contact''
|1997
|PG
|The overall message is about how science and faith do not have to be in opposition to one another.
|$ 100,853,835
|-
|''The Sandlot''
|1993
|PG
|Honestly depicts 1950s America when boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, wimps were taught to toughen up, and every boy had a chance to be great. No historical revisionism.
|$ 32,416,586
|-
|''I Confess''
|1953
|UR
|In this classic by Alfred Hitchcock, a clergyman honors his sacred vow of confidentiality with respect to a confession despite intense pressure to disclose it.
|Unknown
|-
|''Mr. Skeffinton''
|1944
|UR
|Bette Davis portrays a socialite whose life is ruined when she turns ugly with age. Anti-Nazi and anti-materialistic.
|Unknown
|-
|}

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Film
!Year
!Rating
!Comments
!Gross (Domestic)
|-
|''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
|2004
|R
|Downplays the [[Resurrection]],<ref>The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.</ref> and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.
|$ 370,782,930
|-

|''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
|1946
|UR
|Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.
|$ 3,300,000
|-
|''[[High Noon]]''
|1952
|UR
|Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;<ref>http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php</ref> though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.
|$ 3,750,000
|-
|''[[P.C.U.]]''
|1994
|PG-13
|College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.
|$ 4,350,774
|-
|''Pillow Talk''
|1959
|UR
|A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones. There are no distortions by feminist ideology. Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!
|$ 18,750,000
|-
|''[[Blues Brothers]]''
|1980
|R
|Comedy musical. A story of redemption, "A mission from God", raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]</ref>
|$ 57,229,890
|-
|''The Way We Were''
|1973
|PG
|Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.
|$ 49,919,870
|-
|''Grease''
|1978
|PG-13
|Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].
|$ 153,113,000
|-
|''Fargo''
|1996
|R
|Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.
|$ 24,611,975
|-
|''[[Juno (film)|Juno]]''
|2007
|PG-13
|A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.
|$ 143,492,840
|-
|''[[The Dark Knight]]''
|2008
|PG-13
|Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists, but the movie also arguably has some liberal themes as pointed on [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]].
|$ 533,316,061
|-
|''Camelot''
|1967
|G
|The famous jousting scene is a powerful display of Christian values and chivalry, but the movie seems lost afterward.
|$ 31,102,578
|-
|}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Hollywood]]

User talk:DrDean

2011-09-27T04:11:36Z

DrDean:

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:13, 1 September 2011 (EDT)}}
:Thanks!

== XiNO Edit ==

I'm slightly confused by what your trying to state, especially at the end with Pauline christianity, which for all accounts IS Christianity, as messianic Jews and Jewish Christians are either not mainstream or are basically dead.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:00, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:I included that so as not to step on anyone's toes. There are non-Pauline Christians remaining by tradition and those who have retroactively cut Paul from the bible. Paul wrote that, and I was just talking about how I interpret what Paul wrote, and how it guides me in evaluating other Christians. I believe that the salvation of the New Covenant is incompatible with the legalism of the Old Testament and I believe that we all have deal breakers in our thoughts and in our deeds. Since we are all sinners Our duty should be towards finding salvation in the heart of our lord Jesus rather than bickering over who is blacker, the pot or the kettle. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:54, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Published category ==

I saw your change to the categories in [[Essay: Worst Liberal Books|this essay]], and I greatly appreciate your quick response. Your change is more than satisfactory, so unless anyone objects, I think it's fine to remain. Thank you again! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== quick note ==

An atheist internet vandal community of obscure atheists had an opportunity to debate me, but they blew it. All they had to do is give $20,000 to a trustworthy Christian and have that person donate money to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization. They never showed they had a trustworthy Christian and I suggested giving the money to a Bible believing pastor. However, they chose not to which was no big deal to me as I didn't feel they wanted to meet my conditions anyways. As far as my personal schedule, while I do value being flexible, I did not stick to some priorities I set for myself and in retrospect, I shouldn't have done this, but there are certainly still a lot of opportunities to pursue in the world and there is no sense crying over spilled milk.

With that being said, if you would like to see some non-obscure atheists debate me, have them make me an attractive offer and I certainly can consider their offer. Given that [[global Christianity]] is a vibrant and growing community and the atheist community is losing about 300 people a day, I would think there would be an eagerness on their part to debate members of Christendom to try to turn things around despite the fact that God never loses and Christians time and time again are victorious over atheists in debate due to the utter weakness of atheism (see: [[Atheism and Debate]]). Richard Dawkins and Penn Jillette do seem to realize that atheism is worldview for fools and it cannot be credibly defended (See: [[Daniel Came]]). By the way, my debate offer to Penn Jillette still stands, but he does seem to be rather timid when it comes to debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:00, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:I'm new and I don't want to start a fight, but didn't they offer to pay the $27,000 then pull out because you refused to identify yourself? --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 00:03, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have no idea who or what you are talking about. I don't really do debates, or watch them. If you want someone to organize a debate for you you need to go ask someone else. I am very confused as to why this is on my talk page. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Would you debate the YouTube atheist Voiceoftruth2006? He'd be happy for you to do an audio-only debate, so you wouldn't need to reveal your identity. You can check his atheist/evolutionist credentials at his YT channel: [http://www.youtube.com/user/voiceoftruth2006?feature=mhee] --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 00:09, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Perhaps this discussion could happen on someone else's page, I will not be debating anyone anytime soon. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:11, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

User talk:DrDean

2011-09-27T04:08:01Z

DrDean: /* quick note */

Cowardice

2011-09-27T02:51:25Z

DrDean:

'''Cowardice''' is lack of resolve, fortitude, or bravery. A coward is typically seen as being intrinsically weak. Cowardice is not the same as fear, a lack of fear is not bravery it is stupidity, a coward simply does not know how to deal with their fear like a whole, complete, regular adult person. <ref>[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/239709/am_i_a_coward_for_having_fear.html?cat=9 Am I a coward for having fear?] Associated Content, Retrieved Sept 17th 2011</ref>

Cowardice comes with a handful of characteristics which you can easily recognize with a little practice. A coward will typically show a lot of false courage, and braggadocio, but when confronted will respond first with dishonesty, and then slink away. A coward will often invent excuses for avoiding conflict, a wide open schedule will suddenly become full, an acceptable medium for communication will suddenly become unacceptable, an acceptable opponent will become untouchable for some minor reason. <ref>[http://www.ehow.com/info_8544298_signs-coward.html Signs of a coward] eHow, Retrieved Sept 17th 2011</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and cowardice]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Morality]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-27T01:57:43Z

DrDean: /* When will Jeb be moved down the list? */ new section

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates ==

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:: Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

::Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:::Obvious factors would include:

:::*a political base
:::*a principled stance on issues
:::*ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
:::*ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
:::*articulate
:::*ability to handle the hostile press
:::*proven electoral success

:::Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, I think we could add a few more columns to the table. Right now, each candidate has just two very general paragraphs about their pros/cons, but most of this information is opinionated and while I think the rankings are fairly accurate, I think we could increase the precision of the rankings (or just further justify what we already have) by being much more specific as to examples of each candidate's abilities in each area. Perhaps, like Aschlafly said, we could have a column for "X Candidate's ability to handle the press" and give links or examples of when they successfully managed a hostile situation with the media. That way we're not just throwing out opinions.

::::Also, forgive my boldness, but should Jeb Bush really still be second on the list? I do believe that with his name recognition and history in politics he could have a good chance at winning if he were to run, but since he has not declared I think the liklihood that he wins the nomination is decreasing quickly. There is a fast-moving trend in the media to say "Okay, this is our field. Let's work with what we have." And so if Jeb Bush is going to run, the longer he delays now the more he is going to hurt his own campaign. I would suggest keeping him in the Top Five or Top Seven, but moving him out of the second spot, just because he hasn't declared. Texas Governor Rick Perry should probably be moved up a little since the common stance is that he will be running, but I wouldn't put him in the second spot. Maybe move Bachmann up after her excellent performance in the debate? And then Gingrich in third? [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 10:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: You make good points and feel free to add information as long as it does not obscure with less significant complexity. Note, however, that this is not merely a mirror of the [[lamestream media]]. [[Jeb Bush]] would objectively be the second most likely to win the nomination, whether he's running now or not. I don't see anyone else at this time (other than Romney) who has a higher likelihood, although obviously that will change as the deadlines for candidates to formally file election papers approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Democrats ==

Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. [[User:TheoCaldwell|TheoCaldwell]] 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

:At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

== Huntsman ==

I would like to move Huntsman up. Somewhere around number ten. Does anyone mind? I don't think it makes any sense to have him at number twenty-nine (assuming I counted correctly) behind Dick Cheney. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:30, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== Bump paper tiger RHINO Romney from #1, replace him with Bachmann ==

Conservative populism is on the rise. Bump the paper tiger RHINO Mitt Romney from the #1 position and replace him with Michele Bachmann. Plus, setting aside whether it is right or wrong, a significant number of Christian evangelical Republicans in Iowa, the South, the Midwest and elsewhere are less favorable to Romney because he is a Mormon (about 30%).[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/romney-gets-59-favorable-rating-from-republicans-in-presidential-poll.html] It's probably going to be a horse race and in horseraces, winner often win by a nose so that 30% could make a difference. Plus, on the very important likability factor (I like Ike, Reagan, etc.), Bachmann wins hands down.[http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/it-39-s-mr-no-comment-versus-ms-accessible-20110702]P Also, she did very well in the debate and is surging in the polls.[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-vs-bachmann-iowa-6013232] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:32, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:I must agree here. Though Romney isn't exactly a liberal, he's definitely not a true conservative either. Here at conservapedia, we like real conservatives. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::The observations above are astute but we strive for objectivity here and it seems Romney is still in first place, though obviously rankings will change weekly or even daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't think Republicans as a whole are very happy about the present field. The either have to know more about the existing candidates (Bachmann) or they want better choices (Perry/Christie). I also don't think Romney will be able to handle conservative political punches when they come his way and it will be a repeat of 2008. Hard to predict what is going to happen. Usually for Republicans, by now things are a lot more settled in terms of who is going to win. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush/John Huntsman/Rand Paul ==

I'm new here, so I just wanted to give individuals a chance to object before I made these changes. In light of Jeb Bush's own son endorsing John Huntsman today it seems appropriate to move Jeb Bush down the rankings list, and it seems to make sense to move Huntsman up as well, I would suggest either right before or after Sarah Palin's current position. In addition, as Rand Paul has been actively campaigning for his father, and has been unequivocal in stating he will not run against his father, I propose he be moved farther down the list.
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:27, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:I have made the changes, if any objections emerge, I am more than open to discussing them.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 17:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::You're welcome to make changes - the entry, like other entries here, is a work-in-progress benefiting from the [[best of the public]]. But I think you've moved [[Jeb Bush]] far too low. While candidates listed above him struggle to get 50%, Jeb increasingly looks like he could be the star player who enters late in the game to win it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I moved Jeb Bush up a couple more spots in light of your suggestion. I placed him just above Chris Christie, another candidate who could be a star player if he entered late in the game. While I agree that if he were to enter Jeb Bush would be a major contender for the nomination, I believe this needs to be balanced against the actual likelihood that a candidate will enter the race. Jeb Bush has not expressed any willingness to run in this election, and his son's endorsement, and now position with the Huntsman campaign, seems to be another indicator that Jeb Bush will not be entering the race. It is possible that others believe Jeb Bush is more likely to enter, and if that is the case, as you suggest, they are welcome to move him up accordingly. I apologize for how long this is, I just want to make sure a change on an article such as this is acceptable.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I welcome your edits and comments, but honestly I just don't see Huntsman or even Perry having a greater chance of winning the nomination than Jeb. Note that Perry, like Jeb, has not announced yet either.

::::The endorsement by Jeb's son of Huntsman looks like an obvious attempt to keep Romney from winning the nomination at Jeb's expense. Jeb's son will surely endorse his dad once Huntsman gives up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status ==

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx The spread is significant, plus Gov Rick Perry's state has grown jobs and people don't like Romney's history when it comes to important issues to Republicans: healthcare, etc. Perry appears to be the front runner unless a scandal breaks or the electorate becomes significantly more conservative and moves towards Michelle Bachmann. I do think the biggest concern to voters is jobs and Perry seems to have the strongest public perception of strength on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:Perry has been impressive so far, but he needs to take more questions and provide good answers before he can surpass the top candidates as the likely nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== Not running ==

With the field appearing mostly set (excepting the possible inclusion of Palin) shouldn't those who are not running or have made no indication that they will run be removed from the list? As of now it's a mess to navigate and I have no idea how you can even rank those near the bottom of the chart. I propose that the table be drastically trimmed to include only Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and the possible candidates of Palin and Giuliani. Those who have given absolutely no indication that they will run, like Peter King (for example) should not be in the grid. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:Well, since no one has voiced their objection I'm going to go ahead and reduce the Republican list to the 10 mentioned above. I hope this is OK with everyone. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Also, the list of possible Democratic candidates...it's evident that Barack Obama will be the 2012 nominee. There has not been a word from any of these people about a primary challenge, only MSM speculation. I'm going to remove them too. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:30, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a list of the likelihood of someone winning, not a list of who has announced or not announced. Rick Perry was in the top ten before he announced, for example, and rightly so. Others could still announce in the future as well. The conventions that actually nominate the candidates are still about a year in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:But how can you even organize the bottom of the list? How can one intelligently say, for example, that Ken Cuccinelli is more or less likely to win than Mitch Daniels, when '''both are not running?''' That is why my list removed all of those who clearly are not going to be nominated, and kept in Giuliani and Palin, who both have not announced but may in the near future. Plus, the last time the presumptive nominee of either party was not finalized before the convention was 1968, a political lifetime ago, and the last time a dark horse took the nomination was Wendell Willkie in 1940. The convention is a formality in modern politics. If anyone other than the candidates I kept in my revised list is the Presidential nominee in 2012 I'll eat my hat. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::I don't think the Ford-Reagan contest in 1976 was truly finalized until the convention, or the Taft-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So that would be 4 times out out of the last ten or so contested primaries when the convention picked the nominee. That 40% chance of the convention picking the nominee is very significant, particularly when none of the front-runners seems able at this time to win the support of a broad spectrum of Republican voters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But that was before the maturity of the current primary system. 1952 is ancient history as far as primaries are concerned, and I will grant you 1976 but it is clear that Gerald Ford had the advantage of incumbency, and there were only 29 primaries. Since the current primary system has reached maturity, (the 80's), no convention has gone down to the wire. I, and an extremely large majority of election-watchers, just can't foresee the nominee being anyone not on my revised table. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:15, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The primary system is certainly changing, but perhaps back towards the old model, when a challenger party picks its nominee '''''as late as possible'''''. Hence the surprising delays already seen in the campaign season for the Republicans, which hardly any expert predicted. Those delays may continue until the latest possible time: the convention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I disagree. The primary system has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years. Also, I'm surprised you are OK with the convetion picking the candidate, as in all likelihood the delegates would not pick a Tea Party-friendly candidate. The delegates are party insiders, and are most likely closest politically to Mitt Romney. There is just a complete lack of evidence that anyone not on my revised list will be the nominee, and absent entirely unforeseen circumstances, I don't see how it is possible for the majority of delegates, which in 2012 will total around 1200, to cast their votes for someone who did not run in the primaries and not expect a complete disaster of a convention. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly- Back on the original topic of my edit, would you at least agree that the table needs some trimming? By my count there are '''37''' Republican candidates listed. If someone came to the article page for information on the election and candidates, would you expect them to read about all 37? Again, I propose trimming it back to the list I had of 11 or 12 viable, declared (or possible, like Palin and Giuliani) candidates. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 18:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: I do disagree with removing so much information, and disagree with the criterion of whether a candidate says he is running. Note, by the way, that this information is useful in considering who is likely to be picked as the vice presidential nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Then perhaps there should be a separate table for possible VP candidates. Also, I still stand by all of the edits I have made, although I am more than happy to engage in debate with you. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, let's debate whether [[Jeb Bush]] might be nominated. Even though hasn't declared his candidacy, he's also refused to rule it out. If no other candidate wins a majority of delegates, then Jeb Bush could easily be a compromise nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Here is an excellent news story that backs up my position that one of my 11 or 12 will be nominated: [[http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:AaronL]]

== Separate section for declared and undeclared ==

I would suggest splitting the names into a list of declared and undeclared, as well as removing those that have declined to run. I would think that (with the exception of former-Governor Palin) there is a considerable jump in likelihood between those declared and those undeclared. Particularly because the only way an undeclared candidate can be nominated is in the nominating convention, when (from my understanding) every nomination in the past 50+ years was decided before the convention because someone achieved enough delegate votes beforehand to secure the nomination. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 08:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:This article isn't worth debating over. A few sections up Andy made it very clear that he sees no difference between declared and undeclared candidates, hence why Jeb Bush is ranked #2, '''ahead of 10 people who are actually running'''. And you're mostly correct about conventions being formalities, the only nomination decided at the convention was in 1976 (Republicans nominated Ford over Reagan). If you actually do the work and separate them or eliminate those definitely not running (as I did) it will just be reverted. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:01, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::The table is a ranking by likelihood. Whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood. We had Rick Perry high on the list well before he declared, and rightly so. Likewise, Jeb Bush should remain high on the list because he could still decide to enter the race and would immediately become the frontrunner if he did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:22, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the difference is, there were rumblings of Perry running for months before he declared. That has not been the case with Jeb Bush, as it is highly unlikely he will run. You claim that "whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood"; I would like to see your paramaters for determining this likelihood. Do you have a formula? [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:37, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The introduction and table in the entry explain the factors and reasons, and you're welcome to improve them, while adhering to the concise, informative format of the entry.

::::Politics is like an iceberg: 90% is below the surface. ''Conservapedia'' is not limited to the 10% that occurs above the surface.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::A few points for Mr. Schlafly...
:::::*A list of 37 when 12 would suffice is hardly concise. And a list of 10 Democrats when 1 would suffice is the opposite of concise. Your speculation on the Democrats dumping Obama is just that, speculation. The mainstream media speculates about hypotheticals like this and you jump on them for it. The fact that Ralph Nader is listed is absolutely laughable, considering that A) he likely tipped the 2000 election to Bush, and B) he's not even a member of the Democratic Party.
:::::*I still don't understand why you are unwilling to at least remove those who have explicitly stated they are not running, e.g. Thune, Trump (whose reputation is shot), Pawlenty, Pataki, etc.
:::::*Some you have listed will never be nominated by the Republican Party. Dick Cheney is still deeply unpopular within the party; he will '''not''' be the nominee, and wouldn't be even if he was in good health (which he is not). Ken Cuccinelli will not be nominated because he is only a state-level elected official. These are just two.
:::::*You claim that 90% of politics is under the surface. While it is true that there are backdoor machinations and such that the public may not see, this is like claiming that the 90% of the iceberg below the surface is colored like a rainbow and is home to a society of firebreathing elves. Your talk of stalking horses and "Team Newt" (who is holding on for dear life and is having no clear influence on this race) and other nonsense hurts Conservapedia's credibility.
:::::*If you are so confident in your methodology, then please explain to me why, to pick one of many possible examples, Fred Thompson is ''exactly'' 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer, no more, and no less. I am eager to hear your answer to this and my other points. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 17:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::The list should be updated as the race progresses. But the goal is to be over-inclusive rather than overlook a potential contender completely. The full list also serves as a set of prospects for VP, both Republican and Democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You did not address any of the points I made. And the race '''has''' progressed: Pawlenty dropped out, Trump rose and fell, Bachmann tailed off (recently at least) and Perry entered the scene. Your goal of over-inclusiveness is admirable, but you have included every single Republican the average person has heard of as a potential nominee. And no matter what you say, the Democrats will not be naming people like Ralph Nader as VP, and the Republicans won't be naming the Attorney General of Virginia as nominee for anything anytime soon. I'd like to see an explanation of your methodology, and why Fred Thompson is 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 00:37, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

I removed many candidates discussed earlier who, by all indications, will not be nominated for President. Since you have deemed yourself in charge of this article you can make a VP table if you would like. I and users should feel no obligation to work on this article if you are going to revert back to your, frankly, pretty awful version. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:36, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

: Your comments your welcome, and your additions would probably be welcome also. But deletions of information are generally disfavored on this site.

:In response to your question about Fred Thompson and Jan Brewer, Fred Thompson has run before and that gives him an edge over Jan Brewer. Whether someone has run before (or has name recognition due to a family member running before) is a big factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::You didn't fully answer it. If you ae so confident in your ranking, then please tell me why Fred Thompson is '''exactly''' #31 and Brewer is '''exactly''' #35. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 13:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now? ==

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I contributed the maximum allowable contribution to his presidential campaign this go round and last one. The media does not take him seriously, he is very serious but the media is not. Even FOX treats him like a joke. I apologize for the quality and the fact that it's the Daily show but take a look at this piece right after the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM Aimes Iowa straw poll.] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 16:45, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

==Moving to [[United States Presidential Election 2012]] ?==
Because Presidential Election 2012 may also refer to [[Finnish Presidential Election 2012]], [[French Presidential Election 2012]], [[Indian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Mexican Presidential Election 2012]], [[Russian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Taiwanese Presidential Election 2012]], [[Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:57, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::Does anybody care ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Be Bold! Atleast wikipedia would say that haha. I'd say move this and then make this article a disamb.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::ARamis, this isn't Wikipedia. We're not trying to be "globalist". I think people know to which election this entry is referring.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oops, already did it. Revert if you think it is better the other way.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, why not trying to be globalist ? What's wrong with it ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I get what you mean, although if we kept it with the US election the primary,we could give the disamb be its own page, linking to all of them (with a "If your looking for others, go to here") at the top to take you there? Fair compromise.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:42, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In response to ARamis, globalism is counterproductive when it causes more confusion than progress, as illustrated by requiring visitors to click twice in order to find the "Presidential Election 2012" in the U.S. that most will be looking for. Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Here I created a new page [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]] with a link in this page.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush? ==

I'm going to revert BrentH's edit...he should know this article is Mr. Schlafly's domain and any attempt to change it is forbidden. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since WHEN?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::Have you observed this article? I have, as a long-time lurker. Andy Schlafly rejects any attempt by any editor to change the article. Another user tried to trim it and Andy refused to consent. It's not a de jure policy, but it most certainly is a de facto one. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Edits to this and other entries are welcome if they have a logical or factual basis (and comply with the simple [[Conservapedia Commandments]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But edits have '''not''' been welcome to it. There have been attempts to remove people who are not running, and they have been rejected. Are you OK with the ranking as of BrentH's last edit, which has Jeb Bush (who is not even running) in 1st ahead of numerous declared candidates? [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 19:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== When will Jeb be moved down the list? ==

I think the chances of Jeb running are extremely slim, How long should we wait (with out him making any moves) to move him down? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 21:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-27T01:55:34Z

DrDean: Moved Christie up a few positions, personally I'd suspect he is more likely to win than Palin.

''This article is about the '''United States Presidential Election 2012'''. See [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for presidential elections in other countries.

'''''The next presidential debate is on October 11, 2011, in [[New Hampshire]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.

For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]) and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seems to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]] or [[Chris Christie]]?) are possible.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He has lost ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge. He did win the two Florida debates against Perry, however.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|In February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old,
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped badly in the polls since Perry's entrance.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans.
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known, won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24.
|Still not very well known nationally but is getting more recognition.
|Improving in his ranking
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Ahead in national polls by single digits over Mitt Romney, but his support is primarily in the Old South. Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]].
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed awkward or uncomfortable during his second and third debates, causing second thoughts about his electability.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].
|Says she is still considering whether to run. Registered a "sharp turnaround," according to the Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011, by going from 21 points behind Obama to 5 behind in one month's time. Poll also showed that a large majority of Republicans still don't want her to run.
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President. Widely discussed as a potential center-right candidate to overtake the Republican primary field with no clear frontrunners. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-christie-should-run-for-president/2011/09/24/gIQAE3B2yK_story.html Why Christie Should Run For President] Washington Post, retrieved Sept. 26th 2006.</ref> Well liked in his home state, unlike Sarah Palin.
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become a leading contender for Vice President
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been slow to climb in the polls
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Probably running for VP
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing ground and relevancy
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Declining in support
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Busy achieving good things in his current job
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th. Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. Came off as as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race, but he did quite well in the second debate that he was allowed to appear in.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-26T23:49:45Z

DrDean: Updated numbers

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 36 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>

===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>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which 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])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# 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>
# In addition, 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.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# 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.
# Too many deleterious mutations. 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>
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.

===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>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

===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.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# 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>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

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

===Uncategorized===

# 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>

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

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-26T23:47:54Z

DrDean: /* Lack of mechanism */ This study was rejected as coming to a false conclusion.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 38 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 14%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>

===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>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which 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])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# 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>
# In addition, 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.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# 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.
# Too many deleterious mutations. 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>
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.

===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>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

===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.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# 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>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

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

===Uncategorized===

# 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>

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

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Revolt

2011-09-26T03:08:23Z

DrDean:

A '''revolt''' refers to rebellion against an established authority. Some historians use "revolt" to refer to an attempt--usually unsuccessful to change the government or its main policies, while defining [[revolution]] as a deeper, successful change in the political and economic system.

John F. Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." <ref>JFK's "Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress," March 13, 1962. Public Papers of the Presidents – John F. Kennedy (1962), p. 223.</ref>

see [[Tax revolt]]

==Further reading==
* Gurr, Ted Robert. ''Why Men Rebel'' (1970)

==References==
<references/>

[[category:political Terms]]
[[category:Tax Revolts]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-23T16:25:53Z

DrDean: Formatting switch

Despite many of today's non-fiction[[book| books]] being overrun by [[liberal bias]], [[liberal deceit|deceit]], and [[liberal values|distortion]], there are still some great conservative non-fiction books that promote true [[conservative values]].

#The [[The Bible|''Bible'']] - the infallible Word of [[God]] contains innumerable conservative values including [[Christian values]]
#''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' by [[Adam Smith]] - The classic guide to [[capitalism]] and an explanation of the necessity of [[free trade]]
#''The Conscience of a Conservative''''' by [[Barry Goldwater]] -
#''Feminist Fantasies'' by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] -
#''A Choice Not An Echo'' by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] -
#''The Burden of Bad Ideas'' by [[Heather MacDonald]] -
#''McCarthy and His Enemies'' by [[William F. Buckley, Jr.]] and [[L. Brent Bozell Jr.]] -
#''Eat the Rich'' by PJ O'Rourke - An examination of the relative merits of capitalism and socialism through four case studies: "Good Capitalism" (USA), "Bad Capitalism" (Albania), "Good socialism" (Sweden) and "Bad socialism" (Cuba)

[[Category: Essays about Conservatism]]

Talk:Essay: Worst Liberal Books

2011-09-23T03:31:00Z

DrDean: /* Fictional vs. Non-fictional */

==Origin of species?==
Darwin was wrong, but not about everything. Newton was wrong about a few things as well. Darwin didn't set out to destroy God, he waited for 20 years to publish because he didn't want to upset the religious community, and even now that we know more than Darwin possibly could have many of his contributions are still of great importance. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fictional vs. Non-fictional ==

I question the categorization of these works into fiction and non-fiction works, for a few reasons, perhaps inappropriately phrased as questions. 1) Are we labeling them as such based on the categories the publishers assign them? 2) If so, should we not also consider that these classifications are incorrect? For example, Zinn's work is considered by most reputable historians --and even many less than reputable ones-- as primarily a work of fiction. This criticism stems from his highly flawed approach to historical research that displays numerous examples of sampling error. Is this something we should consider in this article? [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:24, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's a useful distinction, so I added "published as" before the category titles, hopefully this is an acceptable compromise to you. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:31, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== ''The Good Earth'' ==
Although classifying the book as liberal may be questionable to some, I listed it for similar reasoning to that of ''The Dispossessed''. Having studied the book several times and researched 20th century China for several reports, the book has clear ties to early Communist movements in China, as well as other portions of Asia. This merits inclusion on the list, in my eyes. Does anyone have any objections? [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:29, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Essay: Worst Liberal Books

2011-09-23T03:29:33Z

DrDean: Hopefully fixes the problem

Book stores and libraries are filled with books that are filled with [[liberal bias]] and [[liberal falsehoods]]. Here is a list of the absolutely worst that should be avoided.

==Published as Non-fiction==

# '''The Communist Manifesto''' by [[Karl Marx]] and Friedrich Engels. Inspired communist atrocities that killed millions.
#''' Das Kapital''' by Karl Marx
# ''' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''' by [[Charles Darwin]]. Anti-God, evolutionist view of life.
#''' The Audacity of Hope''' by [[Barack Obama]].
# '''Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media''' by [[Noam Chomsky]] and Edward S. Herman. Conspiracist book claiming conservatives control the media.
# '''A People's History of the United States''' by Howard Zinn.
#'''[[Quotations from Chairman Mao]]''' by [[Mao Zedong]]-along with ''The Communist Manifesto'', one of the most beloved tracts of [[communism]]

==Published as Fictional==

#''' The Dispossessed''' by Ursula Le Guin. Communistic, utopian outlook on society.
#''' The Good Earth''' by Pearl S. Buck. The reasoning is similar to that listed for ''The Dispossessed''.

Please add more!

[[Category:Essays]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Talk:Essay: Worst Liberal Books

2011-09-23T03:20:08Z

DrDean: Created page with "==Origin of species?== Darwin was wrong, but not about everything. Newton was wrong about a few things as well. Darwin didn't set out to destroy God, he waited for 20 years to pu..."

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T05:21:58Z

DrDean:

I was thrown off by the fact that someone created the article under my feet. I was further thrown off by the fact that the first two books on the list were the first two books on my version of the list, though I simply listed the bible and gave the full title of the wealth of nations. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:37, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK; I was just having a dig at you for adding two books by Phyllis Schlafly. I bet you always brought your teacher an apple :-D --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::One of the staffers at the Eagle forum pointed me here, so me being here is me sucking up to Mrs. Schlafly if anything. :D --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:41, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ha ha, you're getting two for the price of one then :-) --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:42, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If it's not complementary about Sweden's system, why did you write their system as "good socialism"? No matter what country's using it, socialism is not a good thing. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:45, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Not knowing how the book reads, I figured it meant "Oppressive dictatorship socialism" and not "oppressive dictatorship socialism".--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:47, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm not sure I follow you. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:49, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Read the book, I have every confidence in PJ to accurately represent the situations.--[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:51, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The "Good socialism" etc designations are section titles in the book. O'Rourke visited and examined four countries - two capitalist, two socialist. He basically ranked them as: USA, Sweden, Cuba, Albania and came to the conclusion that capitalism is the superior system. He was HL Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, he's a registered Republican and NRA member and he's definitely conservative. Please let's not start judging books we haven't read, eh? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:51, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Thanks DrDean. I'd get quite annoyed if anyone started calling PJ a liberal (although in Europe that's exactly what he'd be, ironically enough.) --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::He is a "liberal" in the sense that he likes liberty, which is very different from the conservative/liberal dichotomy of today. I had actually included Parliament of W----'s to the list, but I'm not sure if that kind of language is appropriate for this community. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 01:21, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T05:21:08Z

DrDean:

I was thrown off by the fact that someone created the article under my feet. I was further thrown off by the fact that the first two books on the list were the first two books on my version of the list, though I simply listed the bible and gave the full title of the wealth of nations. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:37, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK; I was just having a dig at you for adding two books by Phyllis Schlafly. I bet you always brought your teacher an apple :-D --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::One of the staffers at the Eagle forum pointed me here, so me being here is me sucking up to Mrs. Schlafly if anything. :D --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:41, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ha ha, you're getting two for the price of one then :-) --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:42, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If it's not complementary about Sweden's system, why did you write their system as "good socialism"? No matter what country's using it, socialism is not a good thing. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:45, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Not knowing how the book reads, I figured it meant "Oppressive dictatorship socialism" and not "oppressive dictatorship socialism".--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:47, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm not sure I follow you. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:49, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Read the book, I have every confidence in PJ to accurately represent the situations.--[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:51, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The "Good socialism" etc designations are section titles in the book. O'Rourke visited and examined four countries - two capitalist, two socialist. He basically ranked them as: USA, Sweden, Cuba, Albania and came to the conclusion that capitalism is the superior system. He was HL Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, he's a registered Republican and NRA member and he's definitely conservative. Please let's not start judging books we haven't read, eh? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:51, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Thanks DrDean. I'd get quite annoyed if anyone started calling PJ a liberal (although in Europe that's exactly what he'd be, ironically enough.) --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::He is a liberal in the sense that he likes liberty. I had actually included Parliament of W----'s to the list, but I'm not sure if that kind of language is appropriate for this community. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 01:21, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T04:51:08Z

DrDean:

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T04:41:21Z

DrDean:

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T04:37:20Z

DrDean: Created page with "I was thrown off by the fact that someone created the article under my feet. I was further thrown off by the fact that the first two books on the list were the first two books on..."

Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T04:33:22Z

DrDean: Formatting switch

Despite many of today's non-fiction[[book| books]] being overrun by [[liberal bias]], [[liberal deceit|deceit]], and [[liberal values|distortion]], there are still some great conservative non-fiction books that promote true [[conservative values]].

#'''[[The Bible]]''' - ''the infallible Word of [[God]] contains innumerable conservative values including [[Christian values]]''
#'''The Wealth of Nations''' - The classic guide to capitalism and an explanation of the necessity of free trade.
#'''The Conscience of a Conservative''' by [[Barry Goldwater]]
#'''Feminist Fantasies''' by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]
#'''A Choice Not An Echo''' by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]
#'''The Burden of Bad Ideas''' by [[Heather MacDonald]]
#'''McCarthy and His Enemies''' by [[William F. Buckley, Jr.]] and [[L. Brent Bozell Jr.]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books

2011-09-22T04:32:36Z

DrDean:

Despite many of today's non-fiction[[book| books]] being overrun by [[liberal bias]], [[liberal deceit|deceit]], and [[liberal values|distortion]], there are still some great conservative non-fiction books that promote true [[conservative values]].

*'''[[The Bible]]''' - ''the infallible Word of [[God]] contains innumerable conservative values including [[Christian values]]''
*'''The Wealth of Nations''' - The classic guide to capitalism and an explanation of the necessity of free trade.
#''The Conscience of a Conservative'' by [[Barry Goldwater]]
#''Feminist Fantasies'' by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]
#''A Choice Not An Echo'' by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]
#''The Burden of Bad Ideas'' by [[Heather MacDonald]]
#''McCarthy and His Enemies'' by [[William F. Buckley, Jr.]] and [[L. Brent Bozell Jr.]]

Conservative books

2011-09-22T04:20:46Z

DrDean:

[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels]] 
[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books]]

Conservative books

2011-09-22T04:20:10Z

DrDean: Non-fiction is great too!

[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels]]
[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Non-fiction Books]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels

2011-09-22T04:18:49Z

DrDean:

Conservative novels exist, and some are immensely influential. Here is our growing list. Please add to it.
#''The Brothers Karamazov'', by [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]]
#''Crime and Punishment'', by [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]]
#''The First Circle'', by [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]].
#''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'', by [[Robert Heinlein]]
#''Starship Troopers'', by [[Robert Heinlein]]
#''Lord of the Rings'' by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]
#''The Man Who Was Thursday'', by [[G.K. Chesterton]]
#''Darkness at Noon'', by [[Arthur Koestler]]
#''The Camp of the Saints'', by [[Jean Raspail]]
#''Saving the Queen'' and the other Blackford Oakes novels, by [[William F. Buckley]]
#''State of Fear'' by [[Michael Crichton]]
#''For Whom the Bell Tolls by [[Ernest Hemingway]] U.S. Senator and 2004 presidential candidate John McCain cited this as his favorite novel.
#''The Red Badge of Courage'' by [[Stephen Crane]]
#''The Road'' by Cormac McCarthy - winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
#''The Right Stuff'' by [[Tom Wolfe]]
#''Nuremberg: The Reckoning'' by [[William F. Buckley, Jr]]
#''Gilead'' by [[Marilynne Robinson]]
#''The Naked and the Dead'' by [[Norman Mailer]]
#''No Country for Old Men'' by [[Cormac McCarthy]]
#''The Bonfire of the Vanities'' by [[Tom Wolfe]]
#''Midcentury'' by [[John Dos Passos]]
#''Advise and Consent'' by [[Allen Drury]]
#''American Pastoral'' by [[Philip Roth]] - winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
#''Rainbow Six'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''Clear and Present Danger'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''Red Storm Rising'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''The Bridges at Toko-Ri'' by [[James Michener]]
#''Animal Farm'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''1984'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''The Road to Wigan Pier'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''A Midnight Clear'' by [[William Wharton]]
#''The Thin Red Line'' by [[James Jones]]
#''Quo Vadis: A Narrative of the Time of Nero'' by [[Henryk Sienkiewicz]]
#''The Day of the Jackal'' by [[Frederick Forsyth]]
#''Master and Commander'' by [[Patrick O'Brian]]
#''To the White Sea'' by [[James Dickey]]
#''Edge of Danger'' by [[Jack Higgins]]
#''Brave New World'' by [[Aldous Huxley]]
#''The Idiot'' by [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]]
#''The Overton Window'' by [[Glenn Beck]]
#''The Fountainhead'' By [[Ayn Rand]]
#''The Great Gatsby'' by [[F. Scott Fitzgerald]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-22T04:15:45Z

DrDean: /* Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit */

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Don't you have electron microscopes? Sure, you can't examine live specimens, but you can certainly see ribosomes--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Oh yes, but a) I don't use them and b) there is the same kind of limit on electron microscopes, I just don't want to go into the quantum explanations, don't miss the point ;) --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 00:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose it depends on one's view of salvation.
::*If one is an Episcopalian, standards are far more lenient, and even non-Christians are seen as viable candidates for heaven. Calvinists, however, believe most people are predestined for Hell.
::*Mormons do not necessarily have a Hell, but (from what my Mormon friends have told me) several tiers of exaltation, the bottom two being one plane meant to teach wayward souls about God, and the Outer Darkness: reserved for the very worst apostates.
::*Catholicism has [[Limbo]] and [[Purgatory]] for those that don't quite deserve Hell, but don't deserve Heaven either (is Heaven capitalized?). And purgatory is often a step to Heaven.
::*Many Protestants believe that the only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in whatever fashion they might interpret this concept- [[Jack Chick]], for example, excludes Catholics and anyone else he doesn't like) can go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell and sometimes eventually the "lake of fire" (I had a friend which said this was oblivion).
::Also, is this the percentage of people ''today'' that are headed for damnation, or people in general? The poster below me factors in the 100 billion people assumed to have ever lived on Earth. If that is so, then can it safely be assumed that everyone before Jesus Christ except for devout Jews are currently in Hell? What about uncontacted peoples?
::In which Christian cosmologies do Jews go to Heaven? Some seem to assume that being Jewish is as good as being Christian, while others see the Jews as totally damned. And if Jews go to Heaven, what about [[Samaritans]]?

::If we have a sufficiently dedicated mathematician among us, perhaps they can create an algorithm to generate estimates based on all of these unknowns.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I picked my number based on total population ever mostly, and partially on current population, more or less, which leaves little in the way of low numbers. And yes, non-devout jews and non-contacts are in hell, per bible passages supporting this. And the lake of Fire is the "Second death", reserved for the rebellious angels and anybody not in christ after the end of the millennium. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hell is also a Muslim concept, although it is reserved for those that Allah judges to be truly wicked and is not necessarily for all eternity. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm pretty sure this page was intended from a Christian perspective.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, I have added a Muslim perspective! [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
===Does it really exist===
I realize that my personal theology is rather liberal, but I have a hard time believing that an infinitely merciful god would have a special place reserved to torture those who don`t quite measure up. And I think the sentence to the damned deserved to be considered as well... it`s not just a flogging or anything of the like... its infinite amounts of pain for an infinite amount of time. I just doesn`t add up to me. Furthermore, this would require god to be vengeful, which would in turn require God to posses human emotions. A truly transcendent god wouldn`t have human emotions. I may just be following JP2`s views (God bless him!) when I say this, but I seriously doubt there is a literal hell. --SLionel 00:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== A mathematical approach ==

Hello, 
I'm trying to approach this as a mathematician (they same way I approach everything), and I have a question. One estimate I've heard on the Earth's total cumulative population is around 100 billion, which seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me. However, perhaps 30-40% of these lives resulted in deaths before the age of one. Add to that, when you count abortions and miscarriages in the total population, it jumps up to around 200 billion (I can't seem to find that statistic right now ~ it could be off, but I'll go with it.) Figuring out how many Christians have ever lived is tricky, but an estimate can be made, so I have my numerator (maybe 20 billion, with a back-of-the-envelope calculation). However, what denominator should I use? I'm interested in hearing various theological opinions; should I use 100 billion, the amount that were born alive? Or 200 billion, the amount conceived? Or 60-70 billion, the amount that lived passed age one? I'm just ball-parking on my numbers and assumptions, so don't believe them too much, but I think in principle, my question remains. Thank you for your input, and God bless! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::: The 100 billion figure is the secular one - relying on counting back 50,000 years and not taking account of the [[Great Flood]]. To make such a calculation, we'd need to consider the date of the flood. If we assume this to be around 4000BC (Taken from [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/deluge.html this website]) then the numbers start to look very different. 8 people went on the arc, so we need to look at the sum of a geometic series.

::: The current number of people is approaching 7 billion, which we'll use for simplicity. Therefore r^n=7 billion. The Sum of Geometric series is given by a(1-r^n)/(1-r) So the total number ever = -56bn/(1-r) where r is the ratio of increase from generation to generation. This method isn't perfect as it views generations as discrete, whereas 1 lineage might have 9 generations in the same time another has 7. Looking at some different values of r.. if we assume population doubles per generation, then we see 56bn have lived ever. If we assume they triple, 28bn have lived. If we assume they increase by 1.5, then 112bn have lived. Looking at tables of population for the documented period of the last couple of thousand years might allow us to decide a good value of r to work with. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I should be clear - I don't think this is a very good approach to the question at hand, but that if you take it, be sure to consider the flood and not use secularly-sourced figures. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 18:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive, but you kind of butchered the geometric series. For example, when you go from doubling to tripling, total population goes down? But using this, for 8*r^n = 7bn, with n=6000/25 (one generation every 25 years, over six years), we get an r=1.0895. Using this in the geometric series summation, we come to a cumulative population of 77bn. Even a slight increase in the more recent years will easily get you over 100bn Anyways, I don't think this model is great anyways, but whatever. We can quibble about exact number, but I think my question remains. If we're really trying to put a percentage on the number of souls in Hell, we need to consider our assumptions. And I think secular and biblical assumptions both generally assume the start of civilization (and, coincidentally, significant population growth) at around 4000BC, so cumulative populations should tend to converge.[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

==Suggest a third or fourth==
I don't know if I can believe my own suggestion however God is merciful. All have fallen short but His love for us saves 3 out of 4 undeserving people. The prostitute and the tax collector make it but the Pharisee already got his reward.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Could I please ask you to elaborate? Thank you--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Changed taxpayer to tax collector. ''Matthew 21:31 "Truly I say to you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."'' It leads me to believe that many who shouldn't, are there out of His divine mercy. So 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 fall to the abyss.-[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:50, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Many important issues split about 50/50....global warming. ==

Why would a belief in global warming stop one from going to heaven? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe if you worship Al Gore/Lord Monckton?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Because liberals go to Hell? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hopefully I can get a serious answer from someone. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's meant as an example. 50/50 as in fifty percent righteous folks, fifty percent sinners. It's probably not the best example.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:07, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::I didn't add belief in "global warming," but limiting energy does have very cruel effects on some of the neediest persons in the world, such as the elderly and billions in underdeveloped countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is energy being limited though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-20T23:24:38Z

DrDean: /* Rate of extinction */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-20T22:38:55Z

DrDean: /* Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit */ new section

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-09-20T16:10:24Z

DrDean: /* Antiques Roadshow */

== Six Million Dollar Man ==

The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
:It "could've" been a lot of things, and I would gladly concede the point given any evidence to back up such an assertion. But as I recall, the protagonist was an astronaut who was "put back together" by the OSI (a fictional government agency) and worked in the public service thereafter. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 18:29, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

== Star Trek ==

The Federation was an extremely [[socialist]] government, to the point where the very concept of money was downright offensive to humans. Furthermore, the only "[[capitalist]]" race in Star Trek--the Ferengi--started off as villains in the early TNG episodes before becoming comic relief pn DS9. --[[User:AdamDiscordia|[[User:AdamDiscordia|Yours in Christ, Adam Discordia]]]] 00:08, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Sounds like Star Trek should be downgraded to "Debatable Whether Conservative." Please feel free to move it ... but "Trekies" may not like that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== The Simpsons? ==
This may be a long shot but could the Simpsons fit under the Debatable category? Although it does occasionally send liberal messages, it embraces very conservative family values. I'm just not sure whether or not its liberal messages exclude it entirely from being included here. --[[User:JimMac|JimMac]] 09:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

: Personally, I don't any value -- conservative or otherwise -- in the ''Simpsons''. I think it presents [[Hollywood]]'s negative caricature of the family, as several other sitcoms have. But I welcome comments by others about this show, and thanks for the suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:23, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
::I would agree - showing a dysfunctional family is hardly conservative. It would be like saying the abysmal "Married with children" is conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

==Action shows==
I'm thinking about shows from my youth, such as CHiPs - which portrays law enforcement in a positive light, while wholesome lead characters and little violence, and MacGuyver, again a show with little violence and a character using Yankee ingenuity to extract himself from a tight situation. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:21, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

== King Of the Hill ==

Definitely conservative...its definitely the most realistic modern cartoon show and the Hill family is Republican (but not demonized for being so). [[User:RichDunbar|RichDunbar]] 23:50, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Storage Wars ==

Emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:43, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

== ''Pawn Stars'' ==

While it does prove the free market prevails, the show contains a great deal of profanity.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:04, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative humour ==

I am sorry if this is a silly (or repeated) question but how do you define conservative humour? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:My personal definition is humor that shows the irony and extreme folly in following [[liberal values|liberal beliefs]]. [[Conservative humor and satire resources|There's a lot of good stuff out there]]. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 00:28, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::Examples of conservative humor would include poking fun of [[political correctness]], demonstrating contradictions in liberal beliefs, establishing some accountability for liberal falsehoods, and overcoming liberal censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:03, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

==The Office==
I am not sure about this one. While Ryan is clearly a caricature of liberal hypocrite, the show is still mocking conservatives like Dwight and Angela (who is an conservative hypocrite). The best presented characters (Jim & Pam) are clearly liberals.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 23:43, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:We all know Steve Carell used to work on [[The Daily Show]], right?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:15, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::The lame ''Daily Show'' would never permit the conservative humor that Carell portrayed on ''The Office''. Could that be why he left the Daily Show for the Office???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Okey Dokey.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:45, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I would not be surprised to learn it if Steve Carell made more per episode of the office while he was on that show than he did his entire tenure at the daily show. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 11:14, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I thought that Jim was the main character. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 11:43, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Antiques Roadshow ==

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93814&page=1 Here is all I found on the fraud scandal]. A couple of dealers on the show were using their fame to acquire antiques below price. There are many dealers on the show. I suggest Antiques Roadshow be reinstated.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 11:54, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:I couldn't fit it into the edit summary but apparently many of them would bring around objects that they already owned and have associates bring them in posing as their owners and give them high appraisals on air as well. I think that it should be removed from the list all together myself. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 12:00, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I see. I am a bit of a fan of the show. May I ask for a citation, please?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.amazon.com/Priceless-Undercover-Rescue-Worlds-Treasures/dp/0307461483/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 this book]--[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 12:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-09-20T16:00:08Z

DrDean: /* Antiques Roadshow */

Yes Minister

2011-09-20T15:49:44Z

DrDean:

'''''Yes Minister''''' is a [[British]] satirical television comedy written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, about the workings of a fictional department of the British government; the Department of Administrative Affairs. Much of the humor is derived from the fact that Jim Hacker, despite being the Minister of the DAA is continually outmaneuvered by his Permanent Secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, who insists that it is his job to run the Department, and Hacker's is only to provide a public face for it.

Through the course of three seasons of '''Yes Minister''', Hacker establishes himself in the DAA, and then in a Christmas episode "Party Games" succeeds in becoming the [[Prime Minister]], backed by Sir Humphrey and the Civil Service, who believe he will be easily manipulated. A sequel series, '''Yes, Prime Minister''' ran for a further two series. The show rose out of an understanding of [[Public Choice Economics]] and was a favorite of [[Prime Minister]][[Margaret Thatcher]].

==Characters==

===James "Jim" Hacker===
After backing the loser in a bid for the leadership of his party (it is deliberately ambiguous as to which one), James Hacker (Paul Eddington) is given the Department of Administrative Affairs after spending around seven years as Shadow Minister of Agriculture. Although considered around tenth highest in the Cabinet, it has a reputation for being a political graveyard, much like the Home Office. Hacker has never worked in government before, and is constantly surprised and frustrated that he holds little real power, and that regardless of his promises made in opposition, all policies tend towards maintaining the status quo thanks to the intervention of his Civil Servants. As the series goes on, he starts to become more politically skilled, and in a small number of episodes, succeeds in outwitting Sir Humphrey.
Hacker has an unfortunate tendency to say things that are open to other, unintended interpretations. He mentions once that "ministers... are chosen expressly because they know nothing."
Hacker can be seen as an exaggeration of the typical cabinet minister; he is initially concerned with doing what is right, but then avoids making any decision that can be seen as controversial in fear of losing votes. When asked whether, when he said he wanted to do something about local government, he meant "do" something or "appear to do" something, he hastily affirmed that he meant "appear to do".

===Sir Humphrey Appleby===
Just as Hacker is a caricature of a government minister, the Permanent Secretary of the DAA, Sir Humphrey (Nigel Hawthorne) is a satire of the civil servant. He is arrogant and elitist and considers it ''his'' job to run the department on a common ground, regardless of which party is in power or the minister's own policy. He is shown to have little understanding of the world outside his upper-class, grammar-school educated bubble, but believes that what is best for the Civil Service is honestly best for Britain. He constantly lampoons the fact that Hacker has an "inferior" education from London School of Economics (compared to his own degrees in Greek and Latin from Oxford) and generally talks down to Hacker (and often Bernard).
A lot of Sir Humphrey's humour comes from the euphemisms he uses when advising the Minister:
* "A controversial decision, Minister" ''(That'll cost you votes.)''
* "A courageous decision, Minister" ''(That'll cost you the election.)''
* "Have you considered all of the implications?" ''(That's a bad idea.)''
Although Humphrey can be callous and overbearing, he is not without a form of respect towards Hacker and Bernard; in one episode he forces Hacker to protect Bernard from his mistakes, and occasionally helps Hacker to survive his ministerial career, usually in return for dropping a policy that Humphrey is against.

Sir Humphrey explained the roles of Bernard Wooley and himself to Jim Hacker in the first episode:
:'''Jim:''' Who else is in this department?
:'''Sir Humphrey:''' Well briefly sir I am the Permanent Undersecretary of State known as the Permanent Secretary. Wooley here is your Principle Private Secretary. I too have a Principle Private Secretary, and he is the Principle Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, eighty-seven Undersecretaries and two hundred and nineteen assistant secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principle Private Secretaries are Plain Private Secretaries. The Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Undersecretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary.
:'''Jim:''' Can they all type?
:'''Sir Humphrey:''' None of us can type Minister, Mrs McKay types, she's the secretary

Sir Humphrey was big on verbosity:
:'''Hacker:''' When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the civil service is overmanned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer!
:'''Sir Humphrey:''' Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other as far as one can see, at this stage.

===Bernard Woolley===
Hacker's Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley (Derek Fowlds) is trusted by both Hacker (who is supposed to be loyal to) and Sir Humphrey (who he depends on for his future in the Civil Service). This means that both characters confide in him, and thus the audience. Bernard is shown to be extremely pedantic, pointing out the shortcomings in Sir Humphrey's and Hacker's metaphors. For example, when Hacker announced that the idea was to "cut through red tape with a sledgehammer" he points out that it is not possible to "cut" tape with a sledgehammer. Bernard often acts very childlike; when Humphrey insists that an inert compound is one that doesn't "ert", Bernard adds that it "wouldn't ert a fly". However, Humphrey considers him to be a "high flyer" and the novelisations of the series reveal that he eventually becomes head of the Civil Service itself.
Although sometimes ally of Humphrey, he also takes pleasure in conspiring with Hacker against him.

:'''Bernard''': But, you only need to know things on a need-to-know basis.
:'''Sir Humphrey''': I need to know ''everything''. How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?
:'''Bernard''': So that means you need to know things even when you don't need to know them. You need to know them not because you need to know them but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. If you don't need to know, you still need to know so that you know that there is no need to know.
:'''Sir Humphrey''': Yes!
:'''Bernard''': Good. That's very clear!

==Department of Administrative Affairs==
The (fictional) department that Hacker leads is the DAA, the Department of Administrative Affairs, whose job it is to help administer all the other departments and to reduce needless administration and red tape. Ironically, the idea of having a department whose sole purpose is to check up on other departments is itself needless administration. The DAA's unique purpose means that the programme can use ideas for episodes that would normally fall under the jurisdiction of various other ministries, such as the Foreign Office or the Home Office.
The DAA was founded in 1964, when Sir Humphrey joined the department, but the forerunner of the department was founded by [[William Gladstone]] (so, presumably somewhere between 1868 and 1894).

==Portrayal of the British Government==
Within the programme, the elected officials and ministers are portrayed as being controlled almost exclusively by the civil servants, who have been in their posts for much longer as they are not elected. The Civil Service is portrayed as being hideously overstaffed and overpaid and resistant to change anything about itself. Virtually all of the [[civil servant]]s are upper-class with a grammar school/Oxford education but with little real understanding of the common people.
Politicians in general, and in particular the Cabinet, are portrayed as being relatively ignorant and reliant on their Civil Servants.

A running joke in the series in that the Foreign Office does not reflect the views of the British people, or even the government. At one point, after being told that the elaborate reception is to "show the Arab nations whose side we're on", Hacker replies that "this may come as a surprise to the Foreign Office, but you're supposed to be on '''our''' side. Later in the series, Hacker is told "they are on our side", and Hacker seeks clarification that he meant the Americans, adding that: "for a moment, I thought you meant the Foreign Office".

Former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] commented that the portrayal of government was surprisingly accurate, and was a fan of the show even going so far as to write a script for the programme.

== External links ==
=== IMDB links to actors and characters ===
* [http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001329/ Nigel Hawthorne] ([http://us.imdb.com/character/ch0030014/ Sir Humphrey Appleby])
* [http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0248844/ Paul Eddington] ([http://us.imdb.com/character/ch0030013/ James Hacker])
* [http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0288621/ Derek Fowlds] ([http://us.imdb.com/character/ch0030015/ Bernard Woolley])

[[Category:Television Shows]]
[[Category:Comedy]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-09-20T15:43:10Z

DrDean: /* The Office */

Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-09-20T15:16:00Z

DrDean:

Here are some of the greatest conservative television shows:

# ''Family Ties'': a [[conservative]] teenager (played by Michael J. Fox) tries to enlighten his [[liberal]], ex-hippie, underachieving<ref>The father would be criticized by the son for working for less money at a public television station, rather than in free enterprise.</ref> parents
# ''The Office'': mockery of liberal [[political correctness]] and corporate [[socialism]] in an office setting, without a [[laugh track]]. The character of Ryan in particular is a lampoon of [[liberal arrogance]] and immorality. The show was most popular when it was a mockery of liberal ideology, and has declined in quality and popularity as its conservative humor has been reduced.
# ''The Apprentice'': liberals stopped watching when they realized that [[Donald Trump]] might be conservative.
# The ''Six Million Dollar Man'': capitalism at its finest - a government program improving health with technological advances.
# ''The Cosby Show'': promoting good family values
# ''American Idol'': allowing the best of the public to come to the fore, musically.
# ''24'': Jack Bauer shows us how to beat Islamic terrorists.
# ''Star Trek'': emphasized morality, honor, abiding by a strict code of conduct, and problem solving in a science fiction setting that inspired real world innovations; a strong cultural celebration of excellence. Portrayed the Cold War struggle as a conflict between the democratic Federation (USA) and the authoritarian, collectivist Klingons (the Soviet Union), correctly forecast the eventual winner.
# ''The Waltons'': a family struggles in rural America but promotes Christian morality and charity to strangers, and honors military service.
# ''The Lawrence Welk Show'': a clean, family oriented variety show that appealed to Midwestern values.
# ''Chuck'': emphasizes family values, honor, and a respect for our nation's servicemen.
# ''Little House on the Prairie'': A show that celebrates family values and the courage of the pioneers who made our country what it is today.
# ''Touched by an Angel'': a popular drama about an angel in human form who visited troubled people in crisis, it was a highly ranked series for four seasons and ran for a remarkable nine seasons.
# ''Life is Worth Living'': Emmy Award winning show hosted by Archbishop [[Fulton Sheen]]. Between 10 & 30 million people watched the show weekly on moral issues of the day.
# ''7th Heaven'': Show about a Christian minister's family, that dealt with moral and controversial themes, which are approached from a socially and politically conservative Protestant Christian point of view. It was the longest-running family drama in U.S. television history.<ref>[http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1028153,00.html]</ref>
# ''Life Goes On'': Follows the experiences of a young man with Down Syndrome and recognizes the dignity of people with developmental disabilities and the joy and love they give to their families and others.
# ''Dragnet'': starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday and his partner(s) solving actual cases from the files of the Los Angeles Police Department. Great use of law enforcement jargon by the officers while educating the public on the Rule of Law. Showed fine examples of moral conduct, honor of self/others and sacrifice for the good of the public.
# ''Parking Wars'': Demonstrates the offensiveness of overbearing government bureaucracy while maintaining a respect for law officers.
# ''Pawn Stars'': Shows how two parties can **mutually and fairly benefit** from a negotiated free-market transaction, independent of any government "assistance"
# ''The Bob Newhart Show'': a mockery of how crazy people become in a secular world.
# ''Hawaii-Five-O'': Even in what might be expected to be a lazy, hazy paradise, the law is still the law.
# ''Daniel Boone'': As the famous title music sang, "he fought for America, to make all Americans free".
# ''MacGyver'': Show wherein the main character uses Yankee ingenuity to solve various problems and escape the clutches of his enemies. Eschews violence until absolutely necessary.
# ''Walker, Texas Ranger'': starring [[Chuck Norris]]
# ''NCIS'': Show about Navy Cops, was voted ''America's favorite tv show in 2011''
# ''Mission: Impossible'': emphasizes teamwork, friendship, professionalism. Posits that American ingenuity and exceptionalism can overcome any obstacle
# ''Storage Wars'': emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[conservative values|personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills.
# ''The Prisoner (1968)'': Classic British TV show about a secret agent who is sent to a strange "village" in order to determine the reasons for his resignation. The Prisoner is a metaphor for the Individual against the Collective.
# ''Yes, Minister!'' and ''Yes, Prime Minister!'': Classic British sit-com about the political machinations of being a cabinet member in the British government, and then eventually as Prime Minister. A recurring theme is that of the struggle of politicians to make the desired changes against the bureaucracy.
# ''Storm Chasers'': demonstrates core conservative values such as courage and a thirst for practical, scientific knowledge
# ''Cops'': the good guys protecting the public from criminals.

(please add to list)

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

# ''The Twilight Zone'': a recurring theme is that the selfish and the self-centered eventually lose what they sought to gain.
# ''The Beverly Hillbillies'': though silly, the show is powerful in illustrating how material possessions are not what define a person.
# ''King of the Hill'': despite cartoonish nature, shows the struggle of a hardworking, traditional American family against "alternative" modern cultural movements
# ''Antiques Roadshow'': shows the very real (financial and historical) value of handcrafts and traditional, old-fashioned things and memorabilia.

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-09-20T15:14:57Z

DrDean: /* The Office */

Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2011-09-20T15:13:13Z

DrDean: Robert Wittman, founder of the FBI's art crime team considered the show to be a roving source of fraud, with appraisers lowballing pieces of real value and buying them at below market value to resell.

Here are some of the greatest conservative television shows:

# ''Family Ties'': a [[conservative]] teenager (played by Michael J. Fox) tries to enlighten his [[liberal]], ex-hippie, underachieving<ref>The father would be criticized by the son for working for less money at a public television station, rather than in free enterprise.</ref> parents
# ''The Office'': mockery of liberal [[political correctness]] and corporate [[socialism]] in an office setting, without a [[laugh track]]. The character of Ryan in particular is a lampoon of [[liberal arrogance]] and immorality. The show was most popular when it was a mockery of liberal ideology, and has declined in quality and popularity as its conservative humor has been reduced.
# ''The Apprentice'': liberals stopped watching when they realized that [[Donald Trump]] might be conservative.
# The ''Six Million Dollar Man'': capitalism at its finest - a government program improving health with technological advances.
# ''The Cosby Show'': promoting good family values
# ''American Idol'': allowing the best of the public to come to the fore, musically.
# ''24'': Jack Bauer shows us how to beat Islamic terrorists.
# ''Star Trek'': emphasized morality, honor, abiding by a strict code of conduct, and problem solving in a science fiction setting that inspired real world innovations. Portrayed the Cold War struggle as a conflict between the democratic Federation (USA) and the authoritarian, collectivist Klingons (the Soviet Union), correctly forecast the eventual winner.
# ''The Waltons'': a family struggles in rural America but promotes Christian morality and charity to strangers, and honors military service.
# ''The Lawrence Welk Show'': a clean, family oriented variety show that appealed to Midwestern values.
# ''Chuck'': emphasizes family values, honor, and a respect for our nation's servicemen.
# ''Little House on the Prairie'': A show that celebrates family values and the courage of the pioneers who made our country what it is today.
# ''Touched by an Angel'': a popular drama about an angel in human form who visited troubled people in crisis, it was a highly ranked series for four seasons and ran for a remarkable nine seasons.
# ''Life is Worth Living'': Emmy Award winning show hosted by Archbishop [[Fulton Sheen]]. Between 10 & 30 million people watched the show weekly on moral issues of the day.
# ''7th Heaven'': Show about a Christian minister's family, that dealt with moral and controversial themes, which are approached from a socially and politically conservative Protestant Christian point of view. It was the longest-running family drama in U.S. television history.<ref>[http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1028153,00.html]</ref>
# ''Life Goes On'': Follows the experiences of a young man with Down Syndrome and recognizes the dignity of people with developmental disabilities and the joy and love they give to their families and others.
# ''Dragnet'': starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday and his partner(s) solving actual cases from the files of the Los Angeles Police Department. Great use of law enforcement jargon by the officers while educating the public on the Rule of Law. Showed fine examples of moral conduct, honor of self/others and sacrifice for the good of the public.
# ''Parking Wars'': Demonstrates the offensiveness of overbearing government bureaucracy while maintaining a respect for law officers.
# ''Pawn Stars'': Shows how two parties can **mutually and fairly benefit** from a negotiated free-market transaction, independent of any government "assistance"
# ''The Bob Newhart Show'': a mockery of how crazy people become in a secular world.
# ''Hawaii-Five-O'': Even in what might be expected to be a lazy, hazy paradise, the law is still the law.
# ''Daniel Boone'': As the famous title music sang, "he fought for America, to make all Americans free".
# ''MacGyver'': Show wherein the main character uses Yankee ingenuity to solve various problems and escape the clutches of his enemies. Eschews violence until absolutely necessary.
# ''Walker, Texas Ranger'': starring [[Chuck Norris]]
# ''NCIS'': Show about Navy Cops, was voted ''America's favorite tv show in 2011''
# ''Mission: Impossible'': emphasizes teamwork, friendship, professionalism. Posits that American ingenuity and exceptionalism can overcome any obstacle
# ''Storage Wars'': emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[conservative values|personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills.
# ''The Prisoner (1968)'': Classic British TV show about a secret agent who is sent to a strange "village" in order to determine the reasons for his resignation. The Prisoner is a metaphor for the Individual against the Collective.
# ''Yes, Minister!'' and ''Yes, Prime Minister!'': Classic British sit-com about the political machinations of being a cabinet member in the British government, and then eventually as Prime Minister. A recurring theme is that of the struggle of politicians to make the desired changes against the bureaucracy.
# ''Storm Chasers'': demonstrates core conservative values such as courage and a thirst for practical, scientific knowledge
# ''Cops'': the good guys protecting the public from criminals.

(please add to list)

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

# ''The Twilight Zone'': a recurring theme is that the selfish and the self-centered eventually lose what they sought to gain.
# ''The Beverly Hillbillies'': though silly, the show is powerful in illustrating how material possessions are not what define a person.
# ''King of the Hill'': despite cartoonish nature, shows the struggle of a hardworking, traditional American family against "alternative" modern cultural movements
# ''Antiques Roadshow'': shows the very real (financial and historical) value of handcrafts and traditional, old-fashioned things and memorabilia.

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-20T06:21:05Z

DrDean: /* Rate of extinction */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-19T20:45:38Z

DrDean: /* Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now? */ new section

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-19T18:43:50Z

DrDean: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */

'''''The next presidential debate is on Sept. 22, 2011, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.

For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]), [[Michele Bachmann]] (likely to win [[Iowa]]), and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seem to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]]?) are possible.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He is losing ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Has polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped in the polls since Perry's entrance.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans. Not taken seriously by the media.
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Ranking improved on June 9 because Newt's campaign leadership quit. Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]].
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed off-balance during his second debate (in Florida), prompting doubts among some viewers.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known.
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence, although he is getting there.
|Maintaining his ranking
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].
|Disappearing below the memoirs of her infamous daughter
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been unable to climb in the polls
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become the leading contender for Vice President
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Probably running for VP
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing ground and relevancy
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Declining in support
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is [[conservative]] and being promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Increasing in support but slowly. Finished last in the Iowa Straw Poll.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Busy achieving good things in his current job
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, being promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president; sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], unknown nationally, criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue
|Losing ground since he announced he's not running
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-19T17:41:29Z

DrDean: /* Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination */

Nanny State

2011-09-19T06:35:47Z

DrDean:

The '''nanny state''' describes the tendency of [[liberal]] politicians to enact policies that make economic and health decisions for citizens. It is a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] method of solving [[society]]'s problems by putting the [[government]] in control of the people. Essentially, the government becomes the decision maker as the person who knows what is in your best interest. It removes responsibility from individuals and parents and promotes [[liberal values|irresponsibility and dependence]].

Not every nanny state style policy seems like a bad idea, and arguments can be made for the state intervening to stop for instance the insane from taking their own lives. All but the most radical of [[Libertarian]]s recognize that the state has some responsibility to prevent children for marrying too young or to prevent the use of hard drugs. The great difficulty that a [[conservative]] world view helps us to deal with it keeping the nanny state impulse from getting out of control. As more and more nanny state policies are enacted it becomes legitimately in the states best interest and part of the states purview to enact more and more legislation that infringes on our liberties. Reducing the costs of the National Health Service has lead to [[British]] interference with diets and needle exchange programs.

==Examples==

*[[Hillary Clinton]] once quipped, "It takes a village [aka government] to raise a kid."<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/Takes_A_Village.htm OnTheIssues.org]</ref> In a normal society, however, it takes only a [[mother]] and a [[father]].

*Helmet laws.

* Compulsory public schooling.

*[[Universal healthcare]] for 300 million so that 45 million uninsured citizens will have medical coverage

*In the [[United Kingdom]] and [[European Union]], the government pays for advertisements about healthy eating, including encouragements to drink more milk.<ref>http://ec.europa.eu/cyprus/news/eu_school_milk_campaign_en.htm</ref><ref>http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jjr/headlines/2011/05/rupert-grint-milk.jpg</ref>

*In 2011, the [[Wales|Welsh]] government [[big government|mandated]] fire sprinklers in all new houses, regardless of the wishes of the builders or owners <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-wales-14394547</ref>.

*The USFDA drug approval process, that today wouldn't let penicillin (the biggest life saving drug ever) past but lets politically connects homeopathic "medicines" walk on by.

==See Also==
* [[Police state]]
* [[Liberal totalitarianism]]

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

[[category:liberalism]]
{{liberalism}}

<references />

Talk:Nanny State

2011-09-19T05:48:22Z

DrDean: /* Seatbelt laws */

I've Removed the following '"It takes a village (government) to raise a kid", Hillary Clinton. In a normal society, it takes only a mother and a father.' because it has no citations. Also the definition of a "normal" society is subjective. For myself in New Zealand, a normal society is likely to be very different to someone in Brazil who again would have a very different society to someone in America. We would all consider our particular society "normal" [[User:KiwiDan|KiwiDan]] 16:48, 13 September 2011 (NZST)
:I've provided a citation. A "normal" society is logically presumed to be one that embraces rational [[conservative values]] (like only needing a mother and a father to raise a child) instead of an entire village (or as she clearly implied, a ''government''). [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 01:20, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Is banning the sale of violent video games to children really a good example of the Nanny State in action? Violent video games, as Conservapedia has pointed out regularly, features in the lives of pretty much every young killer from the last decade? Surely there are dozens of better examples. Anybody mind if I change this? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 19:30, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Seatbelt laws ==

Click-it or ticket ring a bell? Why should I get a ticket if I choose (stupidly) to not buckle up in my car? I'm not endangering anyone else am I? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 01:01, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe not if your on your own but what about if you are driving other people around? You are responsible for their well-being. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:05, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::If a seatbelt comes into use you are done driving other people around. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry - I don't understand your comment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:11, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Lets say that I'm driving and get into an accident. The drivers seatbelt does nothing to change that accident for anyone in the back of the car or in the passengers seat. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 01:14, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know but its your responsibility to make sure ''they'' have buckled up. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why is it the states responsibility to make sure I make them buckle up? My father is 93, he hates to wear his seat belt, if we get in an accident I am under strict orders not to go to any extraordinary measures to save his life, he says that he is old and ready to die, why is it the states business to meddle in my business with my father? What about if I'm the passenger and I choose not to buckle up? If you are driving me around why is it the states business to compel me to buckle up on pain of your getting a ticket if I don't want to? Even if you think that this is the states business how is that not the state being a nanny? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 01:48, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Nanny State

2011-09-19T05:14:23Z

DrDean: /* Seatbelt laws */

Talk:Nanny State

2011-09-19T05:07:43Z

DrDean: /* Seatbelt laws */

Talk:Nanny State

2011-09-19T05:01:27Z

DrDean: /* Seatbelt laws */ new section

Nanny State

2011-09-19T04:55:20Z

DrDean:

Nanny State

2011-09-19T04:41:00Z

DrDean: I think this is a bit more on target for nannystaters

Video games

2011-09-18T23:40:14Z

DrDean: Undo revision 917775 by SeanS (talk) No, they aren't, not in the medical literature they aren't. Perhaps you are thinking about a concert promoter.

A '''video game''' is any electronic game played on a computer or console. They vary greatly in type and complexity, but all games are alike in that they translate player input (from a controller, mouse, keyboard or motion sensor) into onscreen actions. Games are usually stored on some sort of digital media - ROM cartridge, [[CD]], [[DVD]], or even cassette tape for early computer games - though older or more inexpensive games may have dedicated chips which are pre-programmed to play certain games only. In recent years, game developers have moved to digital distribution, allowing anyone with a credit card or [[Paypal]] account to purchase games online.

Home consoles are classified by ''generation'' to indicate their relative power and date of release. The current major consoles (XBox360, PS3, Wii) are considered ''seventh generation''. Handheld consoles are not generally put into generations due to their more irregular release schedules.

Though a popular form of entertainment in America, some video games (especially in modern years) may tend to promote a [[liberal]] worldview, and can cause [[sexual immorality]], [[atheism]], [[obesity]]<ref>[http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/child_obesity/ Childhood Obesity] Department of Health and Human Services, retrieved Sept 18th 2011</ref>, and [[violence]]. Several prominent murderers in recent years were inspired by video games, for example.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-316491/Teenager-gets-life-Manhunt-murder.html </ref>

Video games have also been shown to help people to become more attuned to their surroundings and increase coordination, and in the future may be used to treat people with visual problems and to train soldiers. <ref> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html </ref>

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as ''Mass Effect'' (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like ''The Mystery of the Druids''.

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

Video games are addictive activities targeted at teenagers, sometimes with tragic results.<ref>Some claim that 2/3rds of videogamers are over 18 years old, but far more people are over that age and a much higher percentage of minors are videogamers.[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> Certain genres of games are becoming increasingly violent and offensive, attracting the attention of legislators in many states to protect the exploitation of children by them. Games such as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' are very violent, sexually explicit, and feature [[criminal]] behavior. These games are rated "M 17+" for "Mature," but courts have stricken down laws preventing retailers from selling them to children, under an interpretation that the First Amendment protects offensive video games even for children.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> After a ''Conservapedian'' filed an [[amicus brief]] with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider this issue, it surprised [[liberal]]s by granting ''[[certiorari]]''.

However, in 2011, the Supreme Court denied a ban on the sale of violent video games in California, claiming they were protected as they "qualify for First Amendment Protection" and pointing out that there has historically been no shortage of violent imagery in children's fairytales, classical literature, and comics. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia pointed out that "disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression", and continued that any effects of violent video games on children "are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media".<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.]</ref>

It has also been suggested that it is the role of parents to regulate what their children play, and that laws restricting video game vendors are an effort to replace parents' decisions with the government's decisions.<ref> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45083/ </ref> <ref> http://www.gameculture.com/2010/11/10/editorial-parental-responsibility-and-today039s-media </ref> <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-games28-2009feb28,0,1556900.story </ref>

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by ''[[Doom (video game series)|Doom]]'', ''[[Quake]]'', and the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series.

Some people point out that violent video games cause violent behavior in some children. The effects of violent video games on the developing psyche of children and adolescents vary greatly and of course have much to do with the mental stability of the subject in question.
Serious crimes have often been associated with video games. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], all retail games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

Some claim that kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause.<ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by playing some of the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing sexually-suggestive material. One reason for the relative lack of explicitly sexual material in western games may be the refusal of retailers including [[Wal-Mart]]<ref>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=440903</ref> (the leading distributor of video games in the United States) and [[Toys R Us]]<ref>[http://www.toysrusinc.com/safety/practices/ See Toys "R" Us's video games policy]</ref> (the world's largest toy themed retailer) to sell games carrying an "Adults-Only" rating. One notable target of controversy is the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series after a third-party mod was released that allowed the player to engage in a mini-game containing explicit sexual material. Mods are, as "third-party" would imply, fan-made and are not the responsibility of the game's developer. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game ''[[Tomb Raider]]'' as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted and advertised as a sex symbol.<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has attempted to blur the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Education in Video Games ==

While most popular video games are experiencing an increase in violence, language, and sexuality, other gamers and game developers are beginning to view video games as an educational opportunity. Firaxis Games, a noteworthy video game development company, has been creating a video game series called ''Civilization'' for nearly a decade. <ref> http://www.firaxis.com/company/ </ref> Civilization is a simulation game that allows the player to lead a nation from ancient times to modern day. It features a dynamic military system, politics, trading, and historical content. It has been recognized for its unintentional educational properties. <ref> http://www.firaxis.com/community/teacher.php </ref>

Microsoft Flight Simulator is another example of a video game being recognized for its unique educational properties. <ref> http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/product/Pages/InfoEducators.aspx </ref>

The popularity of several of the favourite sports video games has led to an uptake in children wishing to take part in them. If an adult plays video games with their children, they can learn about their child's personality and interests.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems. ''Bible Adventure'' in particular is infamous for its poor design and playability.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The ''Breath of Fire'' series and the ''Shin Megami Tensei'' games, in particular, use a god as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion in some way include the ''Final Fantasy'' series, ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]'', ''Black and White'', ''Heaven and Hell'', ''Xenogears'', ''Okami'', and the ''Tales'' series, particularly ''Tales of Symphonia''. Unfortunately, many (not all) of the aforementioned games (And nearly any Role Playing game from East Asia) present religion (or it's respective church and followers) as evil, fake, or having ulterior and nefarious motives.

Games may include a fictional religion as part of the setting if the use of a real religion may invite undesirable controversy.

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where real-world religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]''.<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]
*[[Video game industry]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.whattheyplay.com/ What They Play - the parent's guide to video games]
*[http://www.leftbehindgames.com/index.php Left Behind Games - a Christian, family friendly video game company]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Coward

2011-09-18T23:12:13Z

DrDean: Redirected page to Cowardice

#REDIRECT [[Cowardice]]

Video games

2011-09-18T22:52:15Z

DrDean: Undo revision 917766 by JamesWilson (talk)