Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

2008-11-18T05:05:07Z

Ekeegan: /* Muslim discussion is Obama's fault */

==See Also==
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''

(guidelines: a "CLAIM" argues ''for'' the premise, a "RESPONSE" argues against; use "COUNTER" to argue against a RESPONSE, i.e. favoring the premise.)

* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.
**** '''RESPONSE''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': Never was a Muslim, hmmmmmm. If his father was a Muslim, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth.
****** '''RESPONSE''': This depends on several things: (1) whose laws you recognize (Muslim? Christian? US?); (2) even if you choose to favor Islam's laws over the others, there is some vagueness which requires further research. (3) If he's claimed as a Muslim by the Muslims (or some group of them), would this prevent him from also being a Christian, as he clearly has shown far more interest and activity within that faith than within Islam?
**** '''RESPONSE''': his father was an ex-muslim atheist. We have no proof to counter that. Obama was never a Muslim.
***** '''COUNTER''': no proof exists that Senoir was an Atheist.
****** '''RESPONSE''': His family says he was. They are more authoritative than anything except proof as to someone's personal beliefs.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?
** '''RESPONSE 2''': Many people do not keep track of these dates.
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.
** '''RESPONSE''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
*** '''COUNTER''': If educated, you pronounce what you have learned. Where did he learn the Muslim use of Pokistan? Occidental teach this? University of Chicago teach this? Does Harvard teach this? Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims.
**** '''RESPONSE 1''' fallacious argument. This still does not demonstrate any evidence for Muslimhood. For one thing, many non-muslims pronounce Pakistan this way (and probably many Muslims give it the more American pronunciation).
**** '''RESPONSE 2''': I don't know, but the obvious answer would be in the Indonesian public school he attended early in life. There are certainly many places a well-educated person might pick up an odd (or perhaps more correct) pronunciation.
**** '''RESPONSE 3''': "Only a Muslim knows the proper way to pronounce so he was taught by Muslims." - and yet you clearly are claiming to know the muslim way to pronounce it (otherwise you would not know whether or not his pronunciation is the correct muslim form) by your own logic therefore, YOU are a muslim.
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])
* '''CLAIM''': Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)
*** '''COUNTER''' (I think): if Obama organized a rally for Hitler, then we can clearly say he was a Nazi supporter. But Obama organized a rally for Jew bigot Farrakhan, he can't possibly be a Muslim supporter. (yeah right)
**** '''RESPONSE''' That's not proof, and only circumstantial evidence, that he was NOI. And aside from the NOI is not Islam.
***** '''COUNTER''' The correlation is more than justified. What cause did Obama support? a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 1''': Read up on the million man march. It wasn't a Muslim cause.
****** '''RESPONSE 2''': Since when does supporting "a Muslim cause" automatically make one a Muslim?
****** '''RESPONSE 3''': What do you mean by "a Muslim cause"? Muslims favor male dominance in marriage and firm suppression of homosexuality -- does that mean Conservapedia is Muslim, just because Conservapedia also supports these causes?

This is a rubbish way to pursue a debate. I can see why the original arguments were laid out like this, but adding more & more unsigned comments to the middle of this is just making a mess. Much better to put any new suggestions or criticisms below. Just offering my opinion. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:04, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I really like this way of doing it, although I think a shorthand signing with a key at the bottom would be better, if no one objects I'll look at the page history and do that tomorrow.

While I agree, do you think it will actually make a difference? They're not going to change the Obama article unless Obama gets denounced by every mosque from here to mecca, and even then they'd probably just call it [[deceit]]. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==NormanS's View==

I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.

As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:A couple of things to add to the above. 1. Andy Martin started this rumour (in 2004), claiming he had "evidence" that Obama was a Muslim & had lied to the America people about his faith, though Martin did not make any of this alleged evidence available to the public or even make it clear what kind of evidence it was. 2. A week before the election, Andy Martin appeared on CNN, ''retracting'' his claim that Obama is a Muslim, and replacing it with an even crazier theory - that Obama is the long lost son of the journalist and left-wing activitist Frank Marshall Davis. Again he claimed to have uncoverded proof of this, but offered no evidence whatsoever. See this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o film]. Since Martin now states that Obama is not a Muslim, this clearly proves him to have been lying about having any real evidence that Obama was.

:As Norman says, Andy Martin has a history of spurious and vicious lawsuits and paranoid racist statements, and this is the guy you are giving credence to if you believe the myth that Obama is a Muslim. This is who started it. Clearly this was intended as a tactic to stop people voting for Obama. It hasn't succeeded & it's too late now. We should just let it go & get on with our lives. Clinging to this silly racist rumour can only damage Conservapedia's credibility. And it is a racist rumour - if we were talking about a white politician, this rumour wouldn't exist at all.

:That said, I don't expect this to make any difference at all. This subject has been debated over & over, but Andrew Schlafly is determined to cling on to this story, even in opposition to most of the editors here & some of the prominent administrators. I hope he is willing to engage in this debate, but I really don't think he will. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 07:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)

The constitution says that there should be no religous test for office.... Just a thought.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
: I've totally avoided getting into the question of "why is it so terrible if Obama actually were Muslim?" because the article never actually says "...and therefore he shouldn't be President." Colin Powell did an excellent job of addressing that issue in his endorsement (which I won't link for fear of accidentally promoting evil liberal concepts like diversity and religious tolerance). --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 14:11, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==What's the Point?==

I don't see what good it does to say that Obama is a muslim. Why can't we just take him at his word and let God judge his heart? Conservapedia's dwindling credibility is at stake; we will only look foolish if we make such unproven claims. I say we spend more time talking about how Obama is a baby-killer and a socialist-- both established facts (though the term "baby-killer" isn't widely used). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I second this suggestion, though probably for different reasons. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Retitle Request==
This page should be renamed "Why Obama is not a Muslim." Just for the sheer number of excuses given here. It seems that Obama was born a Muslim, disputed. That he took Muslim classes, disputed. That his stepfather was Muslim, disputed. Later in life, he extensively reads about Muslims leaders, disputed. Exclusively organized a march for the Nation of Islam, disputed. Friends with known Muslims, disputed. Pastor of twenty years is an outspoken defender of Muslims, disputed. Helps in the election of Muslims in Kenya, disputed. Get my drift? Just can't possibly be a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:56, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: I think this argument was brought forth in an earlier discussion on this topic and was easily defeated. Think of all the "disputed" things as individual pieces of evidence in a bigger puzzle. Lets say you are a detective trying to solve a crime. You may find 10 different things in your investigation which point to a certain suspect. Each thing individually may be disputed, and no individual one may be the "smoking gun", but from the sheer amount of them one can deduce that the suspect is most likely the perpetrator. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 00:04, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:: So, the volume of accusations is proof they are true? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:05, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::: The volume is just a pattern. The only way we will know for sure is if Obama says, yes, all along my heart belongs to Muhammed. Even then, I am sure the left would discount it all as "ahh, he really didn't take it all seriously." --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: So... you can't actually know, but you're just going to say you're right anyway because it works better for you politically? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:12, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::: Clever, but no. Likely Muslim- yes. I want him to succeed, believe me my family is counting on him. There are over 1 billion Muslims, being a Muslim isn't a bad thing. Secret Muslim is something much different, much. Did you ever here of prophesy? The anti-Christ comes impersonating Christ. I want to believe these are not the end times. One way we will know for sure is how Obama governs as leader.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Personally, I don't buy into hocuspocus future-sight jibberjabber. So yes, I've heard of prophecy, but no, I don't give it any heed. But I can see how you'd get "impersonating Christ" from someone accused of being a socialist. [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:24, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::You be best to educate yourself on Revelation. It seems Barry is called many things, and such a short life so far, Commie Messiah.--Jpatt 00:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Every Pope, Peter the Great, and most U.S. Presidents have been called antichrist. It's a bit premature to suggest he'll be more powerful than all of those when he hasn't been sworn in yet; he could turn out to be another Buchanan. --Interiot 09:45, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Right, I don't believe in futuresight, therefore I should take its claims seriously. Aside from that, both sides insult the other frequently. How does that prove anything? You're slinging mud just to see if any sticks. HDCase 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim discussion is Obama's fault==
It's the Obama mandate not to answer questions. It is his fault these possibly rumor, possibly truth exists. He says that he is not a Muslim. Hello, not good enough. Specific questions to answers needed (which he fails to provide). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:: He shouldn't have to repeat his awnser. Once is enough. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 00:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Lou Dobbs

2008-11-03T05:18:25Z

Ekeegan: /* Political views */

[[Image:Dobbs.jpg|left]]
'''Lou Dobbs''' (b. Childress, [[Texas]]; September 24, 1945 ) is an [[American]] [[journalist]] and [[columnist]]. He is the [[CNN]] anchor and managing editor for ''Lou Dobbs Tonight''. Dobbs was originally [[conservative]], but now he describes himself as an "independent populist" critic of the "excesses of [[capitalism]]." He has focused on [[immigration]] for years.

<blockquote>
Dobbs has won almost every award in journalism and he's a best-selling author and columnist. He's an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life. <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/ Lou Dobbs] CNN.
</ref></blockquote>

'''University:''' BA Economics, [[Harvard University]] (1967).

==Political views==
Once a self-described "Lifelong [[Republican]]" and [[fiscal conservative]], Dobbs now considers himself an "independent populist" and criticizes what he sees as the "excesses of capitalism." [[Illegal immigration]] is one such excess that he scrutinizes on his television program. He is opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens and advocates enforcement of existing immigration laws, along with a tightening of border security. On trade Dobbs advocates protectionist restrictions in order to protect American industry, and maintain U.S. sovereignty. Positions that are not regularly covered on Dobb's show include a pro-choice stance on [[abortion]], an opposition to [[gun control]] measures, and support for the [[gay agenda]].

== Books ==

* ''Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas'' (2004).
* ''Space: The Next Business Frontier'' (2005).
* ''War on the Middle Class'' (2006). "The middle class is being picked apart and its future mortgaged for the benefit of a small group of powerful American interests," Dobbs says in this book.

Lou is married to Debi Lee Segura (a one-time CNN sports anchor, apparently of [[Mexican]] heritage{{fact}}). They have four children: Chance, Jason, Hilary and Heather. They reside on a 300-acre horse farm in Sussex County, New Jersey.

==See also==
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Larry King ]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

== External links ==

*[http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/ Lou Dobbs Tonight]
*[http://www.nndb.com/people/234/000044102/ Lou Dobbs] NNDB.
*[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2867 CNN's Immigration Problem] Is Dobbs the exception—or the rule?

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dobbs, Lou}}
[[category:broadcasters]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-27T01:28:31Z

Ekeegan: /* Refutations */

The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Refutations==

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
:# No comment.
:# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
:# As for No. 1.
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
:# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
:# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."

: The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.

: It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.

::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.

::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.

::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.

::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).

::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.

::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.

"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.

"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.

"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}

"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.

"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].

"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.

"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.

"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.

"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.

::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.

::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.

::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.

And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.

::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness ==

Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bat counterexample ==

Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.

:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Some Comments ==

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.

: As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.

:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?

: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
:Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
:Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard.
:Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
:Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== "The foliage existed before man does" ==

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-27T01:27:03Z

Ekeegan: /* Refutations */

The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Refutations==

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
:# No comment.
:# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
:# As for No. 1.
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
:# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
:# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."

: The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.

: It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.

::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.

::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.

::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.

::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).

::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.

::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.

"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.

"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.

"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}

"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.

"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].

"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.

"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.

"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.

"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.

::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.

::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.

::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.

And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.

Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness ==

Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bat counterexample ==

Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.

:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Some Comments ==

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.

: As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.

:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?

: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
:Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
:Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard.
:Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
:Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== "The foliage existed before man does" ==

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Mohandas K. Gandhi

2008-10-26T23:01:51Z

Ekeegan: /* Famous quotes */

[[Image:5356356.jpg|right|thumb|Gandhi]]
'''Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi''' (1869-1948) also known by the honorific title ''Mahatma Gandhi,'' was a great leader who obtained [[India]]'s independence from [[Britain]]. He urged peaceful [[civil disobedience]] to the British,<ref>Gandhi's ethic of nonviolence ... calls on each of us to break the self-perpetuating cycle of [[violence]] and [[revenge]] -- of [[action and reaction]] -- by recognizing the common [[humanity]] we share with those we consider our enemies. Gandhi put this philosophy into practice by developing a technique of militant [[nonviolence]] that was intended to force the British to see the humanity of those they oppressed, and the inhumanity of their own actions[http://www.transparencynow.com/news/preface.htm]</ref> calling on Indians to refuse to pay taxes to Britain and refuse to attend British schools. He also called for a boycott of British manufactures, especially for the cloths that Indian weavers are so famous for. The Indians heeded Gandhi’s leadership and stopped buying British cloth. Gandhi also called for the Indian National Congress to change from an elite or wealthy group into more of a people’s voice that could advocate independence. Gandhi drew upon [[Christian]] concepts as well as his native [[Hinduism]]. His education included studying law at the University College London, though Gandhi makes little mention of that in his autobiography and details are unclear.

One of Gandhi’s acts of protest was to lead the Salt March in 1930 for 240 miles to the sea, so that Indians could obtain salt from evaporated salt water rather than buy it from (and pay taxes to) Britain. A law required Indians to buy salt from the British government, but Gandhi’s march peacefully disobeyed that law and created much publicity. Gandhi and many of his supporters were eventually arrested for some of their protests.

At one point a British leader agreed to meet with Gandhi, who then attended with the simple Hindu clothing of a single cloth gown. Offended by this, some British demanded an explanation. Gandhi responded that the British official, who was dressed in the customary suit and tie, was wearing enough clothes for both of them!

Eventually Gandhi’s protest efforts paid off, as the British Parliament enacted the Government of India Act in 1935. This established self-rule at a local level and allowed some democratic elections. Muslims, however, feared majority Hindu rule and requested a separate state for Muslims. The Muslim League endorsed the creation of a new country called “[[Pakistan]]” for the predominantly [[Muslim]] population of that region. India and Pakistan are fully independent today.

Gandhi was a vegetarian and would go on fasts for causes of peace. He was assassinated by Hindu ultra-nationalists on 20 January 1948, shortly after Indian independence.

==Famous quotes==

*First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. ''Then you win.''

*“There is nothing that wastes the body like worry, and one who has any faith in God should be ashamed to worry about anything whatsoever” <ref>http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi/</ref>

*"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" <ref> ''Non-violence in Peace and War'' (1942) Vol I, ch. 142 </ref>

*"Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed." <ref> Speech at Shahi Bag, 18th March 1922, on a charge of sedition </ref>

*(When asked what he thought of Western civilization):"I think it would be a very good idea."

*(Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:) :"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

*"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

==Motion picture==

Richard Attenborough's 1982 film, entitled simply ''Gandhi,'' won eight Academy Awards, including "best picture," as well as BAFTA and Golden Globe awards. It is a biographical film that stays close to the historical facts of Gandhi's life. FIlm critic Roger Ebert said that actor Ben Kingsley "makes the role so completely his own that there is a genuine feeling that the spirit of Gandhi is on the screen."

==Spelling==
[[Image:Gandhi.jpg|left|]]
Gandhi's last name is very frequently spelled incorrectly as "Ghandi," perhaps because "g-h" is a common digraph in English while "d-h" is not.

He was called the Mahatma, or the Great Soul
{{Clear}}
== See also ==

*[[Pratibha Patil]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.mkgandhi.org/ MAHATMA GANDHI]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gandhi, Mohandas K}}
[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:India]]

Talk:Marijuana

2008-10-04T00:17:41Z

Ekeegan: /* Allowed in the Bible */

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hooray for another supporter. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal drug ==
Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
:: The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think we can agree upon that wording? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Perfect. And blatantly factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. ([http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/terminal_illness_is_no_excuse.html see here]) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can something put here by our Lord be made illegal? What grounds do we really have to override God? Marijuana has proven Medicinal, entheogenic and social benefits, and also promotes creative and abstract thought. In the Bible there is a possible reference to cannabis

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” -- Genesis 1: 29-30

Doesn't it seem slightly blasphemous to make one of Gods herbs illegal? [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:53, 31 January 2008 (BDT)

== Angel Raich ==
This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"
as pot, grass, weed, etc.

== Appraisal of its effects/consequences ==
RobS is on one, ''again''. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal ''promotes'' its use?

:In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

:In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

:Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about ''why'' people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

''Allegedly'' harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we unlock this article now so factual information may be added? It is rather annoying to see an article as important as this be locked for so long for reasons that amount to nothing.

Yeah, most of the stuff seems... suspect. Especially the driving claim. A comparison against legal things, such as, say, alcohol would be nice. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Request==

this page is locked, but I wanted to make a few changes. I wanted to remove the link from Larry Elder, as that page does not exsist. I would also like to add a few things about the referendums in Colorado [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reefer Madness ==

You should add in something about the film "Reefer Madness" into this article. There is, in fact, a page on it. You can get there by clicking [[Reefer Madness|here]]. I think that this should be added because there is too much, well, negatives on the drug, and, I think that it would be humorous to add something about a very crappy, yet funny film. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Why locked? ==

The sections on this page about marijuana effects is incomplete (it seems that there are only unpleasant effects listed). There is also very little information about the chemical compound THC itself, which I think would add a lot to the article.

:Yes, why is this locked? The article is missing lots of info; marijuana has ''already'' been decriminalized in parts of the U.S. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 19:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reference no longer exists ==

http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

It says the page no longer exists. Someone should remove or replace it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This article needs to be unlocked. Now. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== Um? ==

When will this article be unlocked?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:40, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allowed in the Bible ==

"every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3).

"He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth" (Psalms104:14)

This should be added for approval, or at least interpretation, for legalized Marijuana use, seeing as this is a Christian encyclopedia.

Talk:Marijuana

2008-10-04T00:15:51Z

Ekeegan: /* Um? */

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hooray for another supporter. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal drug ==
Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
:: The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think we can agree upon that wording? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Perfect. And blatantly factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. ([http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/terminal_illness_is_no_excuse.html see here]) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can something put here by our Lord be made illegal? What grounds do we really have to override God? Marijuana has proven Medicinal, entheogenic and social benefits, and also promotes creative and abstract thought. In the Bible there is a possible reference to cannabis

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” -- Genesis 1: 29-30

Doesn't it seem slightly blasphemous to make one of Gods herbs illegal? [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:53, 31 January 2008 (BDT)

== Angel Raich ==
This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"
as pot, grass, weed, etc.

== Appraisal of its effects/consequences ==
RobS is on one, ''again''. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal ''promotes'' its use?

:In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

:In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

:Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about ''why'' people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

''Allegedly'' harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Can we unlock this article now so factual information may be added? It is rather annoying to see an article as important as this be locked for so long for reasons that amount to nothing.

Yeah, most of the stuff seems... suspect. Especially the driving claim. A comparison against legal things, such as, say, alcohol would be nice. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Request==

this page is locked, but I wanted to make a few changes. I wanted to remove the link from Larry Elder, as that page does not exsist. I would also like to add a few things about the referendums in Colorado [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 18:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reefer Madness ==

You should add in something about the film "Reefer Madness" into this article. There is, in fact, a page on it. You can get there by clicking [[Reefer Madness|here]]. I think that this should be added because there is too much, well, negatives on the drug, and, I think that it would be humorous to add something about a very crappy, yet funny film. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Why locked? ==

The sections on this page about marijuana effects is incomplete (it seems that there are only unpleasant effects listed). There is also very little information about the chemical compound THC itself, which I think would add a lot to the article.

:Yes, why is this locked? The article is missing lots of info; marijuana has ''already'' been decriminalized in parts of the U.S. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 19:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reference no longer exists ==

http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

It says the page no longer exists. Someone should remove or replace it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This article needs to be unlocked. Now. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== Um? ==

When will this article be unlocked?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:40, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allowed in the Bible ==

"every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3).

This should be added for approval, or at least interpretation, for legalized Marijuana use, seeing as this is a Christian encyclopedia.

Talk:Deceit

2008-08-28T23:49:39Z

Ekeegan: /* Nixon, Libby, and Enron */

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)
==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)