Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Homosexuality

2014-05-06T18:35:23Z

JerryCa: Undo revision 1085650 by Writingtheright (talk)

{{Homosexuality}}
'''Homosexuality''' is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality</ref>

== Causes of homosexuality ==

[[Causes of Homosexuality|Homosexuality has a number of causal factors]] that influence its ultimate origination in individuals; these factors will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]]. Next, some of the historical events, [[Religion|religious]] matters, and [[law|legal]] matters relating to homosexuality will be covered. Finally, the latter part of the 20th century has seen a [[Homosexuality Research|large body of research]] on the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes]] and effects of homosexuality.

== Biblical statements concerning homosexuality ==
[[File:Prophet Moses.jpg|thumb|200px|left|The prophet [[Moses]] authored the book of [[Leviticus]] ]]
''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] and [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]] and [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]

Below are some [[Bible]] verses that condemn homosexuality:
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their [[blood]] guiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason [[God]] gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9] (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."

__TOC__

== Homosexuality - Genetics, Religious Upbringing, Culture, Sexual Abuse, and Choice ==

For more information please see: [[Causes of Homosexuality]]

[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".]]
===Terminology===
Homosexuality is sometimes also defined in terms of an attraction, preference, orientation, or [[sexual identity|identity]]. The term "orientation" is particularly favored by those who are promoting public acceptance of homosexuality.<ref>"Today a person is often said to have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation, a description intended to defuse some of the long-standing sentiment among many [[Western World|Westerners]] that homosexuality is immoral or [[Pathology|pathological]]." Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2001-2005 [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/homosexu.html]</ref>

===Genetics and Claims of the immutability of homosexuality===
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Genetics]]

A common argument is that an inclination to homosexuality is inborn and immutable. It is widely believed that the public will become more accepting of homosexuality if they are convinced that it is inborn and immutable. For example, [[Neuroscience|neuroscientist]] and homosexual Simon Levay stated: "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."<ref>[http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/homosexual_myths_and_facts.html Myths and facts about homosexuality]</ref>

[[Causes of Homosexuality|Research into the issue of the origins of homosexuality]] suggests that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their [[gene]]s which suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused. <ref>(''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993)</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp</ref> This data prompted the journal ''Science'' to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families".<ref>(''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993)</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp</ref> However, in regards to [[psychosocial]] and biological theories in regards to the origin of homosexuality, [[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated in 1994: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>

Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "[[Homosexuality and Genetics|born that way]]" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organizations, who politicize the issue of homosexual origins. In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.<ref>http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year2/hormones/tahir.htm</ref>

===Religious Upbringing and Culture Can Strongly Affect Rates of Homosexuality===
''For more information please see'': [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

Dr. Neil Whitehead is a research scientist and [[biochemistry|biochemist]] from [[New Zealand]] and is his wife Briar Whitehead is a writer.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/mygenes.html Book Review: My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation
by Neil and Briar Whitehead]</ref> Dr. Whitehead coauthored a book with with his wife entitled ''My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation'' which argues that there is no [[gene]]tic determinism in regards to homosexuality (homosexuals are "not born that way") and that there is abundant documentation that individuals are able to leave homosexuality and become heterosexuals.<ref>http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm</ref>
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Homosexuality appears to be rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]].]]
Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead declared:
{{Cquote|If homosexuality were significantly influenced by [[gene]]s, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent. It was very rare in the Siriono, even though there were no prohibitions on homosexual relationships in that culture. The researcher observed only one man displaying slight homosexual traits but apparently not sexually involved with another man. Homosexuality appears to be rare among [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] [Orthodox Judaism forbids homosexuality], so much so that learned rabbis, the interpreters of [[Judaism|Jewish]] law, usually allowed men to sleep in the same bed, because likelihood of sexual contact was considered negligible. [[Alfred Kinsey|Kinsey]] also found very low homosexual incidence among Orthodox Jews...

This evidence comes from missionaries who commonly spend 25 years of their lives living in one culture, far more than almost any anthropologist....Overall they can be considered as reliable witnesses. For example, in contrast to groups like the Sambia in the [[New Guinea]] highlands, where homosexuality was compulsory, only about 2-3 percent of Western Dani (also in the New Guinea highlands) practiced it. However, in another group of Dani who were genetically related, homosexuality was totally unknown. Missionaries report that when they were translating the [[Bible]] into Dani for this group, their tribal assistants, who knew their own culture intimately, were nonplused by references to homosexuality in [[Romans]] 1; they did not understand the concept. Another missionary, with the same group for 25 years, overheard many jests and sexually ribald exchanges among the men, but never a single mention of homosexuality in all that time. When Dani went to help with missionary work among the Sambia, they were astounded at some of the homosexual practices they saw for the first time. Although it is always difficult for a foreigner to be completely sure whether a rare and stigmatized behavior exists, it is certainly true that if three such different experiences of homosexuality can occur in groups of people so closely related genetically, genetically enforced homosexuality is an impossibility.<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref>}}

=== Religious leader and civil rights leader Martin Luther King viewed homosexuality as a problem ===

The religious leader and [[civil rights]] leader [[Martin Luther King]] (MLK) never championed the [[homosexual agenda]]. In fact, MLK saw homosexuality as probably a culturally induced "problem" and he believed that homosexuals could become [[ex-homosexuals]]. (see: [[Overcoming homosexuality]]).<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution/ MLK: Homosexuality a 'problem' with a 'solution']</ref>

King wrote in a 1958 column: “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” . “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution/ MLK: Homosexuality a 'problem' with a 'solution']</ref>

===Individuals Raised in Large Cities Versus Individuals Raised in Suburbs, Towns, and Countrysides===
In 1994, the book ''Sex in America: A definitive survey'' by Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata stated the following:
{{Cquote|We discovered that people who were raised in large cities were more likely to be homosexual than people who were raised in suburb, towns, or the countryside. This relationship also showed up in the General Social Survey, an independent national sample.<ref>[http://www.ucmpage.org/articles/jmiles9.html Sex in America: A definitive survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Boston, Little, Brown, 1994, page 182]</ref>}}

The aforementioned authors Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead similarly wrote:
{{Cquote|There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among those who have been raised in large cities, rather than in rural areas, arguing that the environment is much more powerful than genes in the development of homosexuality.<ref>http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm</ref>}}

===Failure of Experiments to Show Genetic Determinism For Homosexuality===

''For more information please see'': [[Failure of Experiments to Show Genetic Determinism For Homosexuality]]

Dr. Dean Hamer is a researcher often cited to show that there is empirical data supporting the notion of genetic [[determinism]] in regards to homosexuality. News organizations like [[National Public Radio]] and [[Newsweek]] have done news stories regarding his work.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html</ref> In respect to the press trumpeting various findings genetics-of-behavior research uncritically the science journal ''Science'' stated the following in 1994:
{{Cquote|Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or [[chromosome|chromosomal]] regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994)]</ref>}}

===Volition as a Causal Factor of Homosexuality - Homosexuality as a Choice===
In regards to the issue of [[Homosexuality and Choice|homosexuality and choice]], given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[ Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support. In short, there is a strong argument that one can [[Overcoming Homosexuality|leave homosexuality]].

Also, in 2012 ABC News reported concerning actress Cynthia Nixon: "Cynthia Nixon stands by her statement that she is gay by choice, despite the backlash she’s received from members of the gay community."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/01/cynthia-nixon-gay-by-choice/ Cynthia Nixon: Gay by Choice?]</ref> In addition, given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]] it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Another other factor that makes engaging in homosexual acts a bad choice for individuals is the significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] stated that 82% of all [[United States|American]] [[Protestantism|Protestant]] ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make".<ref>[http://www.greymatterresearch.com/index_files/Homosexuality.htm Opinions about homosexuality - Grey Matter Consulting]</ref>

== Ex-Homosexuals ==
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]] and [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

In regards to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a permanent condition, one of the earliest historical records regarding of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is a letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church.

The Apostle Paul taught that [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]] when he wrote the following:
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord [[Jesus Christ]] and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their [[Christianity|Christian]] faith.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.venusmagazine.org/cover_story.html</ref><ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>
[[Image:6a00cdf3a9bf0ecb8f00cd973c56934cd5-500pi.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ex-Homosexual and ex-"gay rights" leader Michael Glatze speaking to the mother of [[Matthew Shepard]].]]

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/16/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible/ Landmark study - Change for homosexuals is still possible]</ref>}}

In respect to Peter LaBarbera's statement above regarding homosexuals overcoming homosexuality through the power of God, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7435713 E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980]</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state in their aforementioned book the following regarding ex-homosexuals [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The sexology literature reports a huge number of examples of change of all degrees from homosexuality to or toward heterosexuality. These studies have been so numerous that West (a gay man) in 1977 took an entire chapter in his classic book, Homosexuality Re-examined, to review them, and commented: “Although some militant homosexuals find such claims improbable and unpalatable, authenticated accounts have been published of apparently exclusive and long-standing homosexuals unexpectedly changing their orientation.”

West mentions one man who was exclusively homosexual for eight years, then became heterosexual...

Another well known author in the field, Hatterer, who believes in sexual orientation change, said, “I’ve heard of hundreds of ... men who went from a homosexual to a heterosexual adjustment on their own.”<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf From the book My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead -Chapter 12]</ref>}}

=== Hate Crime Law Misapplied to Ex-homosexual ===

See: [[Hate Crime Law Misapplied to Ex-homosexual]]

==Anti-Homosexuality Blogs==
Two of the more popular [[Anti-homosexuality blogs|anti-homosexuality blogs]] are [[Americans For Truth]] and [[Gay Christian Movement Watch]]. The blog Americans For Truth is run by [[Peter LaBarbera]] and the blog Gay Christian Movement Watch is run by Pastor D.L. Foster.

==2006 Survey Finds Homosexual Men Seek to Become Ex-homosexuals Often Do So to Heal Emotional Pain or For Spiritual Reasons==
A 2006 survey finds [[Homosexual Men|homosexual men]] [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071302.html seek to leave homosexual lifestyle to heal emotional pain and for spiritual reasons rather than outside pressure.] In addition, there is [[Homosexuality and Mental Health|other data that supports the above 2006 survey findings]].
[[Image:FacProfilemontoya.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. [[Alex D. Montoya]] wrote:"The [[Christianity|Christian]] needs to befriend and witness to the homosexual with such [[love]], [[compassion]], and [[wisdom]] that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref>]]

==Homosexuality and the Bible==

''For additional information please see'': [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] and [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

In respect to [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality and the Bible]], sound [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and Bible exposition demonstrates that the Bible condemns homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599(1993): 327-340]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492]</ref><ref>[http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, Guenther Haas, Redeemer College]</ref><ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000) 155-168 HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref> In addition, [[Christianity|Christian]] apologist [[JP Holding]] refutes various arguments that assert that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html</ref><ref>http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html</ref> In his essay which examines the biblical passages regarding homosexuality, Pastor and Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at [[The Master's Seminary]] Dr. [[Alex D. Montoya]] states that "The [[Christianity|Christian]] needs to befriend and witness to the
homosexual with such [[love]], [[compassion]], and [[wisdom]] that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref>

==Biblical City of Sodom, Homosexuality, and Archaeology ==
The [[Bible]] clearly associates the city of [[Sodom]] with homosexuality ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:4-9;&version=49; Genesis 19:4-9]), although [[Sodom|the Bible associates with Sodom other sins as well]]. Claims that the primary reason for Sodom's judgment was inhospitality are not supported by sound [[Bible exegesis]].<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>

The Bible states regarding Sodom:

...the LORD rained on Sodom and [[Gomorrah]] brimstone and fire from the LORD out of [[heaven]], and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:24-25;&version=49; Genesis 19:24-25]
=== Dr. Bryant Wood's Archaeological Investigation in Relation to Sodom ===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]
The following was reported in respect to Dr. [[Bryant Wood]]'s archaeological work in relating to the biblical city of Sodom:
{{cquote|Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one [[kilometer]] outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. [[Bryant Wood]], in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."<ref>[http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/ Archaeology and the Old Testament by Patrick Zukeran]</ref>}}

Dr. Wood provides some additional material in relation to the find being the biblical city of Sodom.<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0903.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Part 1 of 2]</ref><ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1003.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—Part 2]</ref>

==Homosexuality and Promiscuity ==

''For related information see'': [[Homosexuality and promiscuity]] and [[Homosexuality Statistics]]

A 2004 article by Michael Foust states:
{{cquote|A new study by a group of [[University of Chicago]] researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in [[Chicago]]'s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one [[Sexually Transmitted Disease|sexually transmitted disease]], researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458 Baptist Press, MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity by Michael Foust (Posted on Jan 16, 2004)]</ref><ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/470318chap2.html An excerpt from The Sexual Organization of the City - Chapter 2 - The Chicago Health and Social Life Survey Design - concerning Chicago's "Shoreland" area]</ref>}}

== Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence ==

[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|170px|left|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".]]
For more information please see: [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]

Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. For example, a recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>2004 General Social Survey], Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> According the [[American College of Pediatricians]] who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref> In addition, the [[American College of Pediatricians]] states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref>

In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported the following regarding homosexuality and domestic violence:
{{cquote|Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community...

Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are [[HIV]]-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humilation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' 2004 Jun;39(2):403]</ref>}}

==Homosexuality and Murders==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Murders]]

===Commonness of Homosexual Murder===
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 concerning [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexuality and murders]] that homosexual murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of [[lesbianism|lesbian]] relationship and they are murdered by another female.<ref>[http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/homoserial.htm Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation By Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. Former Commander, Bronx Homicide, NYPD]</ref> In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the ''Journal of [[India|Indian]] Academy of Forensic Medicine'' in respect to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.<ref>[http://medind.nic.in/jal/t05/i3/jalt05i3p184.pdf SEX RELATED HOMICIDES AND OFFENDERS -A MEDICO-LEGALISTS VIEW, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, Dr. S.K.Dhattarwal, ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'', 2005 ; 27 (3). ISSN 0971 -0973]</ref>

===Homosexual Murders and Brutality===
==== Forensic Journal Articles on Homosexual Murders and Overkill====
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|The eminent pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote concerning homosexual homicides: "Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] murders, is certainly a form of [[sadism|sadistic]] crime."]]
There have been a number of forensic journal articles on the issue of homosexual homicides and overkill.<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref><ref>[http://medind.nic.in/jal/t05/i3/jalt05i3p184.pdf SEX RELATED HOMICIDES AND OFFENDERS - A MEDICO-LEGALISTS VIEW, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, Dr. S.K.Dhattarwal, ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'', 2005 ; 27 (3). ISSN 0971 -0973]</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9430297?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8947366?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>
In 1996, the forensic journal [[The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology]] published an article entitled ''Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill"''. The abstract for the journal article states:
{{Cquote|Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>}}

==== Dr. William Eckert on Homosexual Homicides and Overkill ====
According to the [[New York Times]], Dr. [[William Eckert]] was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator [[Robert F. Kennedy]] and the [[Charles Manson]] murders.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DE123FF937A1575AC0A96F958260 ''New York Times'', William Eckert, 73, Medical Sleuth in Major Cases By WILLIAM H. HONAN, September 24, 1999]</ref> Dr. Eckert founded the ''American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology''.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DE123FF937A1575AC0A96F958260 ''New York Times'', William Eckert, 73, Medical Sleuth in Major Cases By WILLIAM H. HONAN, September 24, 1999]</ref> <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992160,00.html Time Magazine, Milestones by By VAL CASTRONOVO, MATTHEW COOPER, AUTUMN DE LEON, DANIEL S. LEVY, LINA LOFARO, CHRIS TAYLOR AND DAVID E. THIGPEN, October 9, 1999]</ref> According to ''[[Time]]'' magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and [[Forensic Science|forensics]] teams.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992160,00.html Time Magazine, Milestones by By VAL CASTRONOVO, MATTHEW COOPER, AUTUMN DE LEON, DANIEL S. LEVY, LINA LOFARO, CHRIS TAYLOR AND DAVID E. THIGPEN, October 9, 1999]</ref>
[[Image:0-picture.jpg‎|thumbnail|180px|right|The eminent [[Pathology|pathologists]] [[Bernard Knight]] and [[Pekka Saukko]] stated that it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428</ref>]]

Dr. Eckert wrote concerning homosexual murders:
{{cquote|Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}

==== Additional Source on Homosexual Murders and Overkill ====

''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random [[Hate crime|hate crime]].<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The previously cited pathology textbook by Knight and Saukko stated the following: "In addition, quite a number of fatal altercations arise because a heterosexual man becomes violent when importuned by a homosexual."<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428-429</ref>

== Homosexuality and bestiality ==

=== Prominent homosexual activist and Frank Kameny's comments on bestiality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

Homosexual activist Frank Kameny is a fervent [[Atheism|atheist]].<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2006/11/15/gay-hero-frank-kameny-calls-believers-christianofascists-says-gay-is-moral-and-virtuous-at-task-force-conference/ ‘Gay’ Hero Frank Kameny Calls Believers “Christianofascists”; Library of Congress Honors “Gay Is Godly” Atheist]</ref><ref>Leaders from the 1960s: a biographical sourcebook of American activism By David De Leon, page 253</ref>

On Jun 04, 2008, [[LifeSiteNews]] wrote:
{{cquote|Long-time homosexual activist Frank Kameny’s claim to fame is successfully manipulating the American Psychiatric Association into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, and today the Smithsonian honoree is now busily advocating [[bestiality]] "as long as the animal doesn’t mind."

Kameny, 83, has had a long career advocating the removal of any restrictions on human acts long considered by sane societies as obscene, dangerous, and disordered...

Kameny describes his mission as "Americanism in action" by advocating bestiality and encouraging the saturation of American culture with what he calls "more and better and harder-core pornography."

According to [[Americans For Truth|Americans for Truth about Homosexuality]] (AFTAH), Kameny wrote an e-mail to them saying that while he was personally opposed to bestiality, he found it an otherwise "harmless" quirk, so long as it was consensual with the animal involved.

"Bestiality is not my thing," Kameny wrote. "But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn’t mind (and the animal rarely does), I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should."<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/jun/08060403 Prominent Homosexual Activist Says Bestiality OK “As Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind”]</ref>}}

=== Homosexuals March in Madrid Cheering Bestiality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

On July 14, 2009, in a story entitled ''Homosexuals March in Madrid Cheering Bestiality and Demanding “Affective-Sexual Diversity” in School'', [[LifeSiteNews]] reported concerning a homosexual parade in Spain:
{{cquote|"I like dogs, I like apples, in my bed I sleep with whomever I want," was one of the principal chants in the Gay Pride Parade last week in Madrid, where hundreds of thousands marched through the streets to advocate "gay rights" and homosexualist ideology, according to local media reports.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexuals-march-in-madrid-cheering-bestiality-and-demanding-affective-sex Homosexuals March in Madrid Cheering Bestiality and Demanding “Affective-Sexual Diversity” in School]</ref>}}

==Lesbianism==
[[Image:Schnieders.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Yvette Cantu Schneider and family]]
Women who engage in homosexuality are called ''[[Lesbianism|lesbians]]'' (after the ancient Greek island of [[Lesbos]]). Recently, the former lesbian activist Charlene Cothran left homosexuality and converted her pro-homosexuality magazine to one that helps homosexuals find freedom and deliverance through faith in [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/10/11/ex-lesbian-charlene-cothran-tells-aftah-banquet-that-born-gay-claim-is-vicious-lie/ Ex-Lesbian Charlene Cothran Tells AFTAH Banquet that ‘Born Gay’ Claim Is ‘Vicious Lie’]</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQGA-n4JyOY Charlene Cothran - Gay Activist Finds Christ - video]</ref> Lesbian activist Yvette Cantu Schneider also became a Christian and left homosexuality.<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/06/22/ex-lesbian-yvette-schneider-testifies-to-complete-and-permanent-change/ Ex-Lesbian Yvette Schneider Testifies to ‘Complete’ and Permanent Change]</ref>
<ref>[http://familypolicy.net/hope/?p=607 Yvette Cantu Schneider]</ref>

In 2007, [[WorldNetDaily]] published the following regarding a lesbian woman:
{{Cquote|A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in [[feminism|feminist]] causes "changed" her into a lesbian.<ref>[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into lesbian: 'I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men']</ref>}}

==Health Effects of Homosexual Lifestyle==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and health]] and [[Gay bathhouses]]
===AIDS===
[[Image:Biol 01 img0018.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]] attacking T4 [[lymphocyte]]s]]
A review of the history of [[Homosexuality and AIDS|homosexuality and AIDS]], indicates the original spread of [[AIDS]] is generally attributed to the aforementioned promiscuity of homosexual men. Originally the syndrome was called the "gay disease" because the overwhelming majority of patients were homosexual men.

In September of 2010, [[Reuters]] reported: "Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923</ref> A September 2010 report of the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) reported : "Gay, [[bisexual]], and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by [[HIV]] and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States..."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm</ref>

In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: "An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population."<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609</ref> This is a dramatic recent increase. In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported that homosexual men and men who have sex with men "are nine times more likely to become infected with [[HIV]] than their heterosexual counterparts".<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403]</ref> Of newly diagnosed [[HIV]] infections in the [[United States]] during the year 2003, the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) estimated that about 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm</ref>
As of 1998, fifty-four percent of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men, and the CDC stated that nearly ninety percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.<ref>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html</ref>

In 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' the following: "[[Proctitis]], or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring [[HIV]] infection. With the recent increases in bacterial sexually transmitted diseases ([[STD]]s) among MSM in the [[United States]] and [[Europe]], there has been a concomitant increase in the number of cases of clinical proctitis."<ref>[http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/2/300.abstract Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent, Etiology of Clinical Proctitis among Men Who Have Sex with Men, Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:300-302]</ref> On March 15, 2004 [[Medscape]] published an article by John G. Bartlett, M.D. entitled ''New Look at "[[Gay Bowel Syndrome]]"'' in which they commented on the aforementioned 2004 journal article ''Etiology of clinical proctitis among men who have sex with men'' published by JD Klausner and C. Kent in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''. The article in Medscape stated the following:
{{cquote|There were multiple studies of the newly recognized "[[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]]" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse, in part attributed to reduced frequency thought to reflect changing practices by gay men in response to the [[HIV]] epidemic. This study clearly indicates that it is still an issue, since the cases were studied in 2001-2002. Also, the etiology is about the same as previously, although [[HSV]] is newly recognized as an important component. This finding not only affects management but also has HIV prevention implications. The authors note that two thirds of the participants were HIV negative and that proctitis increases the risk of HIV by up to 9-fold.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4</ref>}}

Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website has a duplicate of the aforementioned article by John G. Bartlett, M.D. at Medscape which was entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"''.<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref>

In 2004, the prominent medical website, WebMD, stated the following: "Men who have sex with men and women are a "significant bridge for HIV to women," the CDC's new data suggest."<ref>http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/20061101/hiv-bisexual-bridge-to-women</ref>

==== Teenage AIDS and Teenage homosexuality ====

See: [[Teenage homosexuality]] and [[Teenage AIDS]]

===Homosexuality and MRSA===
[[Image:Mrsa_4.jpg‎|thumbnail|225px|right|In 2008, the ''Annals of Internal Medicine'' reported that infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men, and multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population.]]
In relation to [[Homosexuality and MRSA|homosexuality and MRSA]], on January 15, 2008 the newspaper [[San Francisco Chronicle]] had a news article entitled ''[[San Francisco]] gay community an epicenter for new strain of virulent staph.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL</ref> The [[San Francisco Chronicle]] news article stated the following in regards to homosexuality and [[MRSA]]:
{{Cquote|A new variety of staph bacteria, highly resistant to antibiotics and possibly transmitted by sexual contact, is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles, researchers reported Monday.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL</ref>}}

On February 19, 2008 the ''Annals of Internal Medicine'' published a study regarding antiobiotic resistant staph infection in relation to men who have sex with men and the abstract for the article states the following in relation to homosexuality and MRSA:
{{Cquote|Infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men, and multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283202?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>}}

==== Homosexuality and Syphilis ====
[[Image:Ro0304F8Treponema.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|A [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] analysis suggested that approximately 64 percent of all adult primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men.]]
[[Syphilis]] is an infection caused by the [[bacteria]] Treponema pallidum. An early publication to propose the link between homosexuality contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted disease was the [[England|English]] publication '' Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine'' in 1962.<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1896863 A.J. King, The Complications of Homosexuality, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 55 October 1962]</ref> The '' Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine'' made the following statement: "The importance of homosexual practices in the spread of [[Venereal Disease|venereal disease]]s has attracted particular attention recently. It almost seems that these practices are keeping [[syphilis]] alive in this country." <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1896863 A.J. King, The Complications of Homosexuality, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 55 October 1962]</ref>

The news organization [[Cybercast News Service]] reported the following about [[Homosexuality and Syphilis|homosexuality and syphilis]]:
{{cquote|The federal [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.

In a report on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) issued Tuesday, the government said syphilis, a disease that was almost eliminated as a public health threat less than 10 years ago, is on the rise -- with cases increasing each year since 2000.<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homosexual-men-account-65-percent-syphilis-cases-cdc-study-finds Homosexual Men Account for 65 Percent of Syphilis Cases, CDC Study Finds]</ref>}}

===Homosexuality and Gonorrhea===

In relation to [[Homosexuality and Gonorrhea|homosexuality and gonorrhea]], in 2006, the American Association of Family Physicians reported: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) have high rates of gonococcal infection. In [[San Francisco]], more than one half of these infections occur in MSM, and previous cross-sectional studies have reported a prevalence of up to 15.3 percent in this group."<ref>http://www.aafp.org/afp/2007/0615/p1860.html</ref>
[[Image:Neisseriagon.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Gonorrhea]] is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] (STD) caused by the bacterium ''[[Neisseria gonorrhoeae]]''.]]
In 2007, the medical journal ''Sexually Transmitted Diseases'' published an article entitled ''Sexually Transmitted Infections in Western Europe Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men'' which stated the following regarding homosexuality and gonorrhea:
{{cquote|"Since the late 1990s, increases in diagnoses and rates of gonorrhea have been observed across the region, although recently there has been evidence of a levelling off and even a decline in some countries.

In [[Denmark]] (1994–1999), gonorrhea incidence was 6 times higher among known [[HIV]]-positive MSM [men who have sex with men]... A study in a [[Paris|Parisian]] clinic showed that at least one-third (30/92) of MSM diagnosed with gonorrhea between January 1999 and May 2001 were HIV-positive... In [[Sweden]], 5.4% (4/74) of gonorrhea cases were in HIV-positive MSM in 2000. By comparison, at sentinel sites in [[England]] and [[Wales]], 32% (123/381) of MSM with gonorrhea were HIV-positive in 2004.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17495592&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum ''Sexually transmitted infections in Western Europe among HIV-positive men who have sex with men'',''Sexually Transmitted Diseases'' 2007 Oct;34(10):783-90.]</ref>}}

===Homosexuality and Lymphogranuloma Venereum Outbreaks===
[[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|Lymphogranuloma venereum]] is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] that mainly infects the [[lymphatic system|lymphatics]].<ref>http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic304.htm</ref> According to the recent medical literature, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Lymphogranuloma_Venereum_Outbreaks_Among_Homosexuals_and_HIV_Infection there have been recent outbreaks of lymphogranuloma venereum in Europe and North America and the outbreaks have been limited to the homosexual community.]
==== Homosexuality and Parasites ====
[[Image:Ehistolytica05.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Throughout the world, high rates of intestinal [[parasite|parasitism]] are found in men who have sex with men.]] Concerning the issue of [[Homosexuality and Parasites|homosexuality and parasites]], anal sex can be an important risk factor for [[Intestines|intestinal]] [[Parasite|parasitism]].<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/</ref>

In 2006, the ''[[The Medical Journal of Australia]]'' reported the following:
{{cquote|High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.

[[Amebiasis|Amoebiasis]] has become endemic in MSM in [[Japan]] and causes significant morbidity and mortality; complications such as colitis and liver abscesses occur more frequently in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Similar findings on amoebiasis are reported from [[Taiwan]], with MSM at increased risk for invasive amoebiasis and intestinal colonisation with [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. histolytica]].<ref>[http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/sta10803_fm.html ''Letter to the editor - Locally acquired infection with Entamoeba histolytica in men who have sex with men in [[Australia]]'', Damien J Stark, Rashmi Fotedar, John T Ellis and John L Harkness, MJA 2006; 185 (8): 417]</ref>}}

In 2001, The journal ''Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan)'' published an article entitled ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome'' in which they stated the following the following:
{{cquote|While the overall prevalence of [[amebiasis]] is approximately 4% in the [[United States]], certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and [[disease]]. Prevalence of [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. historylitica]] or [[Entamoeba Dispar|E. dispar]] in the gay population of [[New York City]] and [[San Francisco]] approached 40-50% . Some Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was an important risk factor for amebic infection.<ref>[http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=internalmedicine1992&cdvol=40&noissue=7&startpage=563&lang=en&from=jnlabstract Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11506293&ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref>}}

===Higher Rates of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and Amebiases Elaborated===
[[Sexually transmitted disease]]s that cause [[proctitis]] include [[syphilis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], and [[amebiasis]] and as noted earlier the homosexual community has significant problems in regards to these illnesses.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref> <ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec09/ch130/ch130f.html</ref> In addition, as mentioned earlier proctitis significant risk factor in respect to [[HIV]] infection.<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> According to the Mayo Clinic, "proctitis in general mainly affects adult males".<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705</ref>
[[Proctitis]], [[syphilis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], and [[amebiasis]] are all maladies that are associated with [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]] which why John G. Bartlett, M.D. stated at the Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website and at [[Medscape]] that gay bowel syndrome is still currently an issue.<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4</ref>

===Homosexuality and Hepatitis===
[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|right|Hepatitis C Virus]]
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Hepatitis]]

In relation to [[Homosexuality and Hepatitis|homosexuality and hepatitis]], according to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both [[Hepatitis]] A and Hepatitis B disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM).<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hav_msm_fact.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitis C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute hepatitis C among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. British researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, United Kingdom, since 2000. The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

Viral hepatitis is one of the illnesses of [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].

===Homosexuality and Shigellosis===
[[Image:Gech 0001 0004 0 img0247.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Shigella]] [[bacteria]] cause [[shigellosis]]]]
Men who have sex with men (MSM) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Shigellosis.2C_Proctitis.2C_and_HIV_Infection appear to have a greater incidences of the malady shigellosis]. Shigellosis is a condition associated with [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].

===Peter LaBarbera and His Calls to Shut Down Homosexual Bathhouses===

''For more information please see'': [[Gay bathhouses]]

[[Peter LaBarbera]], president of [[Americans for Truth]], stated the following about [[Gay bathhouses|gay bathhouses]]:
{{cquote|Why isn’t there a concerted government effort — akin to the current anti-smoking campaigns — to reign in homosexual promiscuity – beginning with closing down all sex businesses (bathhouses) that facilitate homosexual perversion? (Of course, we favor closing down straight prostitution businesses as well.) We know that bisexual behavior (men on the “down low”) help spread dangerous diseases to the general population: how many deaths and illnesses have to result from “second-hand sodomy” before authorities take corrective action?<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/big-city-homosexual-men-are-epicenter-of-new-virulent-mrsa-staff-strain.html</ref>}}

=== Homosexuality and Mental Health ===
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎|thumb|225px|right|Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ([[suicide]], [[depression]], [[bulimia]], antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).<ref>http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/Gender/Site/depression/mental_problems.htm</ref> ]]
In respect to [[Mental Health and Homosexuality|homosexuality and mental health]], studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ([[suicide]], [[depression]], [[bulimia]], antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).<ref>http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/Gender/Site/depression/mental_problems.htm</ref>

For example, a national survey of female homosexuals was published in the ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'' which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness.<ref>Book: Disabusing Sexuality By Canon Nathan Karema, page 23</ref>

In contrast to claims by [[gay rights]] activists blaming this heightened incidence of mental issues on discrimination, John R. Diggs, M.D. states the following regarding homosexuality and mental health:
{{Cquote|An extensive study in the [[Netherlands]] undermines the assumption that [[homophobia]] is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The [[Netherlands|Dutch]] have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other [[Western World|Western countries]] — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.<ref>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html</ref>}}

==== It Gets Better Project ====

''See also:'' [[Atheism and suicide]]

The [[It Gets Better project]] is a misguided liberal project to prevent young homosexuals from committing suicide and it does not encourage young people to become [[ex-homosexuals]]. In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two homosexual males who promoted the It Gets Better project committed suicide. (see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

===Homosexuality and Cigarette Smoking===

[[Image:A24987~.jpg‎|thumb|right|175px|The recent medical literature states the homosexual men and lesbians in the [[United States]] have significantly higher rates of cigarrete smoking than [[heterosexuality|heterosexuals]].]]

In relation to [[Homosexuality and Smoking|homosexuality and smoking]], the recent medical literature states the homosexual men and lesbians in the [[United States]] have significantly higher rates of cigarette smoking than [[heterosexuality|heterosexuals]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15456993&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Cigarette smoking among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: how serious a problem? (United States), Cancer Causes & Control, 2004 Oct;15(8):797-803]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17018152&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Gay/Lesbian sexual orientation increases risk for cigarette smoking and heavy drinking among members of a large Northern California health plan, BMC Public Health. 2006 Oct 3;6:241]</ref>

===Homosexuality and Anal Cancer===
In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported the following regarding [[Homosexuality and Anal Cancer|homosexuality and anal cancer]]:
{{cquote|One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal [[carcinoma]]. Several recent studies have indicated the rate of anal dysplasia to be increasing in men with and without [[HIV]]. Ninety percent of men with HIV have the human papiloma virus ([[HPV]]), while 65% of men without HIV have HPV. HVP type 16 is the most troublesome for developing [[cancer]] and is found in a significant portion of gay men.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):404]</ref>}}

In 1997, [[Concerned Women of America]] reported the following regarding homosexuality and anal cancer:
{{cquote|Homosexual men's practice of anal sex has left many of them victims of anal [[cancer]]. One article in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' commented, "Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37 percent) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only one of 64 controls." The [[JAMA|Journal of the American Medical Association]] also published similar findings: "[[Epidemiology|Epidemiological]] studies have shown that risk factors for anal cancer include homosexuality, history of receptive anal intercourse, presence of anal condylomata, and smoking." And the ''International Journal of Cancer'' stated, "Being single and having practised anal intercourse appears to be associated with anal cancer and case reports have suggested a recent increase in the number of cases of anal cancer." Other studies have yielded the same conclusions.<ref>Concerned women of America - former website page</ref>}}

=== Homosexuality and obesity ===

[[File:Stephen-Fry.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|Stephen Fry is a [[homosexual]] and an [[atheist]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

[[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the [[Centers for Disease Control]] looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and''' 7) weight management.''' (emphasis added)<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera also wrote: "Anyone who has researched the subject of homosexuality knows that many of the most staunch advocates of homosexuality are those who hold a decidedly secular outlook." (For more information please see: [[Atheism and obesity]]).<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2008/05/03/homosexuality-and-atheism/ Homosexuality and atheism]</ref>

==== American Lesbian Women More Than Twice as Likely to Be Obese Than All other Female Sexual Orientation Groups====
[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|255px|right|thumbnail|In April of 2007, the ''American Journal of Public Health'' analyzed data from 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the data suggested that [[United States|American]] lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.
<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''For more information please see:'' [[Lesbianism and Obesity]]

In 2013, the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH) reported that 75% of American [[lesbianism|lesbians]] are [[obese]].<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-15-million-study-why-lesbians-are-fat Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat - CNS News]</ref> In addition, in April of 2007 the'' American Journal of Public Health'' analyzed data from 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the data suggested that [[United States|American]] lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.
<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref>

In 2009, the ''PubMed'' article abstract for the Polish psychiatry journal ''Psychiatria Polska'' article ''Body Image in [[Homosexual]] Persons'' declared:
{{Cquote|Homosexual women are less concentrated on physical appearance and more satisfied with their bodies while being more tolerant to obesity.... For lesbian women the ideal body image is more massive than for heterosexual women.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19694404?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1</ref>}}

In 2007, a purported [[lesbian]] wrote to [[Andrew Sullivan]], the political commentator and administrator of ''The Daily Dish'' blog:
{{Cquote|And - oh heck, I'll admit it - aesthetics have value, too! As a woman, I may not be as focused on looks as men are predisposed to be, but I sure am tired of seeing so many queer ladies out there who are way past 200 pounds. Way, way past. Sorry, but no amount of "fat acceptance" is going to make that a pleasant sight - gay, straight, butch, femme, male or female.<ref>http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/obesity_and_les.html</ref>}}

===Bible Prohibition Against Homosexuality and Sound Health Practices===
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Bible|biblical]] prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.]

==Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use==
''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use]] and [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]
[[Image:Powder meth foil small.jpg|thumb|right|255px|In 2007, the ''Los Angeles Times'' reported the frequency of [[methamphetamine]] use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.]]
In 2007, the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' reported the frequency of [[methamphetamine]] use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html ''More Gay Men Using Meth, Study Finds,''] by R. Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times, April 11, p. B6.</ref>

In January of 2007, the journal ''AIDS (London, England)'' in an article entitled ''Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney'' stated the following: "Higher rates of illicit drug use have been reported among gay men than among similar populations of heterosexual men..."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17159587&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus AIDS (London, England), 2007 Jan;21 Suppl 1:S49-55]</ref>

In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported the following regarding homosexuality and illegal drug use:
{{Cquote|...the increased use of recreational or party drugs such as ectasy, "poppers", and [[methamphetamine]] ("crystal meth") influence unsafe sexual behaviors in gay men. Many of these illicit drugs are used during "circuit parties," in which gay men from various geographical locales congregrate in one large metropolitan community over an extended 2- or 3-day period for the purposes of intense partying and sexual activity.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403</ref>}}

See also: [[Homosexual circuit parties and disease|homosexual circuit parties and disease]]

==Homosexuality and the Suppression of Religious Liberty==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Religious Liberty]]
[[Image:Wicked.jpg|thumb|left|150px|The book ''When the Wicked Seize a City'' recounts how Pastor [[Chuck McIlhenny]] and his church were terrorized by homosexual activists.]]
There have been a notable number of incidents involving the issue of [[Homosexuality and Religious Liberty|homosexuality and the suppresion of religious liberty]] in regards to dissent and the objectionableness of homosexuality.

*Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]] served as pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox [[Presbyterian]] Church for numerous years.<ref>[http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=123 Fighting the good fight in San Francisco]</ref> In 1978 Dr. McIlhenny co-authored a book which recounted how he was threatened and his church and home firebombed by homosexual activists subsequent to a lawsuit he won regarding the church's right to fire its organist who was homosexual.<ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/printerfriendly.asp?ID=10262</ref>Dr. McIlhenny's home was firebombed while his family was sleeping inside.<ref>[http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=123 Fighting the good fight in San Francisco]</ref>

*The [[documentary film]] [[A Nation Adrift]] chronicles some of the events that took place during the [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot|Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] in [[San Francisco]] in which a angry group of male homosexuals and [[lesbian]]s vandalized church property, assaulted church members, terrorized church congregates, screamed profanity, threw rocks, harassed and scared children, and disrupted a church service.<ref>[[Christianity Today]], November 8, 1993, v37, page 57</ref><ref>[http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm The Homosexual and Lesbian Riots of September 19, 1993], David C. Innes, News Release. </ref> <ref>[http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiots_Barko_Account.htm The Homosexual and Lesbian Riots], A Member's Perspective, Hap Barko, October 28, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41037 'Finest video ever produced' about U.S.A.], 'Upbeat, unforgettable evening of entertainment. Feel good about America again', ''WorldNetDaily.com'', January 4, 2007.</ref> See also: [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]]

*In 2005, [[David Parker]] was arrested and put in handcuffs at his child's school in relation to a lesson promoting homosexuality called the "King & King" being taught to first graders in the [[ Massachusetts]] school. <ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/28/david-parker-enda-and-the-battle-for-our-childrens-hearts/ David Parker, ‘King and King,’ and the Battle for Our Children’s Hearts and Minds]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46431 Dad on trial over homosexual book]</ref> David Parker desired parental rights but the principal at Esterbrook Elementary School in Lexington defended the “King & King” lesson and denied parents the right to be informed about it and to opt their kids out. <ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/28/david-parker-enda-and-the-battle-for-our-childrens-hearts/ David Parker, ‘King and King,’ and the Battle for Our Children’s Hearts and Minds]</ref> The "King and King" violated David Parker and his wife's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/28/david-parker-enda-and-the-battle-for-our-childrens-hearts/ David Parker, ‘King and King,’ and the Battle for Our Children’s Hearts and Minds]</ref> The Massachusetts anti-[[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] organization MassResistance has a webpage devoted to the events surrounding the David Parker issue and the ongoing legal battle associated with the matter.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/ David Parker -- his arrest, court appearances, abuse by school officials, harassment by pro-gay activists in town, and federal civil rights lawsuit!]</ref>

*In 2004, eleven Christians, who have been dubbed the "[[Philly 11]]", were arrested at a [[Philadelphia]] event promoting homosexual-rights and some of the charges were felonies.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref> Among those who were arrested were Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 who were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref> In 2005, after national publicity led to widespread criticism of the arrests (especially the heavy penalties being threatened) a judge dismissed all criminal charges.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref> In 2006, a United States federal judge ruled the group of homosexuals could not dismiss a lawsuit against the homosexual activist group Philly Pride Presents which was brought against them by the Christian protestors.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref>
[[Image:HamSquare.jpg|thumbnail|100px|left|[[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot|Hamilton Square Baptist Church]]]]
*In October of 2001, a 69 year old street preacher named [[Harry Hammond]] from Bournemouth, [[England]] was subjected to assault by an angry crowd of 40 people while he proclaimed his Christian views in the town center which included a call to repentance in respect to homosexuality.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Mr. Hammond was arrested, prosecuted and fined but no arrests were made in respect to those who assaulted him.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Appeals to overturn the verdict, which included an appeal to the [[European Court of Human Rights]], were dismissed. <ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref>

*[[WorldNetDaily]] reported the following regarding the famous St. Patrick's Cathedral Incident involving homosexual and [[abortion]] activists:
{{cquote|One infamous incident was the assault on New York’s famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While [[Cardinal John O'Connor]] presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of [[Jesus]].<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887</ref>}}

*The [[It Gets Better Project]] is currently a national embarrassment. In 2012, [[homosexual activist]] Dan Savage was supposed to deliver an anti-bullying message to [[high school]] students. However, as many as 100 students walked out on his speech as he shouted vulgarities about the [[Bible]] and mocked [[Christian]]s. <ref name="mocks">[http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens] Starnes, Todd, FoxNews Radio, April 27, 2012</ref> It was reported that Savage engaged in verbal bullying as well. <ref name="mocks"/>

== Roman Catholic Church, Homosexuality, and the Sexual Molestation of Minors ==

See also: [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the American Roman Catholic bishops and the Vatican had noted a growing problem with clerical sexual abuse in the U.S.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940</ref> In addition, Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children.<ref>http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/our-view-catholic-church-needs-administrative-reform-1.2200659</ref>

Catholic League president Bill Donohue declared concerning the scandals of priests molesting minors:
{{cquote|The latest attempt to silence me comes from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Call to Action and the Interfaith Alliance. The three left-wing organizations have joined hands demanding that the media "ignore Bill Donohue." Their complaint? My telling the truth about the role homosexual priests have played in the abuse scandal.

The data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by homosexuals. By the way, puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys.

No problem can be remedied without an accurate diagnosis. And any accurate diagnosis that does not finger the role that homosexuals have played in molesting minors is intellectually dishonest. The cover-up must end. And so must attempts to muzzle my voice. Everything I am saying is what most people already know, but are afraid to say it. It's time for some straight talk.<ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/attempts-to-censor-donohue-fail/ Attempt to censor Donohue fail]</ref>}}

Bill Donahue published in the [[New York Times]]:
{{cquote|The Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/bill-donohue-catholic-sex_n_520187.html</ref>}}

==HIV Infected Adolescents and Young Adults in America and Infection by Older Men ==
''For related information please see'': [[Teenager Homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]
[[Image:AIDS_virus.jpg‎|thumbnail|right|225px|Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]]]
In 2006, the noted pediatric journal entitled ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' published a position paper entitled ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''. <ref>Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91</ref> The aforementioned 2006 position paper of the Journal of Adolescent Health stated the following: "Among adolescents and young adults with HIV or AIDS, most infections are acquired by having sex with HIV-infected men."<ref>Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91]</ref> In addition, the ''Journal of Adolecent Health'' stated the following:
{{cquote|As of December 31, 2003, almost 38,500 cases of AIDS had been reported in adolescents and young adults 13–24 years old in the United States of America. Previous studies demonstrating that the risk of AIDS increased with the age at infection suggest that a large proportion of people developing AIDS in their third decade of life became infected with HIV as teens.<ref>Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91]</ref>}}
===Medical Community Negligence and Government Negligence===

''Please see:'' [[Teenage AIDS]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

===Homosexuality and Older Homosexuals Preying on Vulnerable Youth===

See also: [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

The pro-homosexuality publication ''The Advocate'' in 1992 made the following admission in regards to homosexuality and HIV infection in American youth:
{{cquote|Gay boys and straight girls who are having sex for money, shelter, love - they are at risk. And our community, the gay and lesbian community - and I particularly fault gay men here - has done nothing to try to help our youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV-positive men having unprotected sex with boys. They don’t think it matters.<ref>''America's Worst Kept Secret - AIDS is devastating the Nation's Teenager and Gay Kids are Dying by the Thousands'', Victoria A. BrownsWorth, ''The Advocate'', March 24, 1992, page 41.</ref>}}

In 1991, the medical researcher Kruks reported the following in the ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' regarding homosexuality and HIV infection among youth:
{{cquote|Gay male street youth, as well as nonlesbian female street youths, seem to be particularly vulnerable for emotional as well as sexual exploitation...

These relationships are often extremely damaging for a number of reasons. The "sugar daddy" usually presents himself to the youth in a loving caretaker role. For a street youth who has a past history of rejection and/or abuse, the promise of being loved and cared for is a compelling one. However, these relationships in many ways have similar dynamics to incest.

Many gay youths coming to YSD [Youth Services Dept. of Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Service Center] for services have long histories of being involved in a succession of "sugar daddy" relationships. Each of these is a cycle of falling in love, believing that life will now be wonderful forever and that this older adult truly loves the young person, discovering that in fact it is just sex that the adult wants, feeling the impact of one more betrayal, and ending up on the streets again. The whole cycle last an average of 1-2 months, and the youth often becomes extremely [[suicide|suicidal]] at the end of each cycle.<ref>http://fathersforlife.org/dale/heartbea.html</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1772888&dopt=AbstractPlus Kruks, G. (1991) Gay and lesbian homeless/street youth: Special issues and concerns. Journal of Adolescent Health. 12: page 518]</ref>}}

In 1995, the medical journal'' Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine'' stated the following:
{{cquote|Another group at high risk for HIV infection is young men reporting sex with other men....Many young gay men tested in homeless youth centers reproted exchanging money or drugs for sex, which may place them at high risk for HIV infection. Young men who are homeless or runaways who barter for sex with same-sex partners may not consider themselves gay and thus may beyond the reach of prevention messages targeting the gay community.<ref>[http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/5/521 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Volume 149, May 1995, page 527]</ref>}}

===Homosexuality and Pedophilia - Journal of Homosexuality, International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA) and NAMBLA ===

''see also:'' [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

There are notable instances of prominent homosexual organizations being permissive towards pedophilia or condoning/promoting pedophilia. For example, the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' is a academic journal which has featured material that looks upon pedophilia in a generally approvingly manner.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html</ref><ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html</ref> For example, an article by Dr. Brongersma stated that parents should not view a pedophile "as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html</ref>

The International Lesbian and Gay Association was founded in 1978 and is a world-wide network of national and local homosexual groups has more than 620 member organizations.<ref>http://www.ilga.org/</ref> In 1993 the ILGA obtained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) but in 1994 they lost their status due to groups within their membership, most notably the [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]] (NAMBLA) and Vereniging MARTIJN, advocating pedophilia or expressing solidarity with pro-pedophilia groups.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/government-promotion/united-nations/</ref> ILGA expelled the groups associated with pedophilia but they were denied
ECOSOC decided against restoring ILGA’s consultative status in 2002 and once again in January 2006.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/government-promotion/united-nations/</ref> NAMBLA had been a member of the ILGA for a decade before it was expelled by the ILGA. NAMBLA calls itself a homosexual organization.
[[Image:Harry Hay.jpg|thumbnail|120px|Many consider [[Harry Hay]] to be the founder of the American homosexual movement.]]

===Homosexuality and Pedophilia - Other Ties of NAMBLA to the Homosexual Community===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

Steve Baldwin published the following in the [[Regent University]] Law Review regarding homosexuality and pedophilia:
{{cquote|Indeed, some [[NAMBLA]] chapters meet at mainstream gay centers such as Philadelphia’s Gay and Lesbian Community Center. NAMBLA’s meetings and conferences always feature mainstream gay leaders and speakers. For example, Don Kilhefner, of the Los Angeles Gay Community Service Center, gave a speech to Los Angeles NAMBLA members on the subject of "The Significance of Man/Boy Love in the Gay Community.

The most comprehensive gay networking website, the Queer Resource Directory ....links every gay group in the country
including NAMBLA and other homosexual groups that focus on youth. NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades with the consent of the gay leadership. Many of the homosexual movement’s most prominent leaders endorse NAMBLA and its goals. Gay authors and leaders such as [[Allen Ginsberg]], Gayle Rubin, [[Larry Kramer]] (founder of ACT-UP), Pat Califia, Jane Rule, Michael Kearns, and Michel Foucault have all written in favor of either NAMBLA or man-boy relationships. [[Harry Hay]], whom many consider the founder of the American homosexual movement, invited NAMBLA members to march with him in the 1993 "March on Washington" gay rights parade. He also marched in the 1986 Los Angeles gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."

Leading mainstream homosexual newspapers and magazines such as the Advocate, Edge, Metroline, The Guide, and The San Francisco
Sentinel have not only published pro-NAMBLA articles and columns but also many have editorialized in favor of NAMBLA and sex with children.<ref>http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf</ref>}}

=== Atheism, homosexuality, pederasty and NAMBLA ===

''see also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

Some of the well known [[atheism|atheist]] advocates of the [[NAMBLA|North American Man-Boy Love Association]] are:

1. The atheist and homosexual [[David Thorstad]] was a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100822</ref>

2. '''[[Harry Hay]]''' (1912 - 2002) was an [[liberal]] advocate of [[statutory rape]] and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist [[homosexual agenda]] in the [[United States]]. Hay joined the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) in 1934. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> Harry Hay was an [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref> He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love. <ref>The American Spectator Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006.</ref><ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref> In 1986, Hay marched in a [[homosexual|gay]] parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "[[NAMBLA]] walks with me."<ref>http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf</ref>

==== Liberal economist John Maynard Keynes and pederasty ====

''See:'' [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty]]

== Homosexuality in schools ==

Please see:

* [[Homosexuality in Schools|Homosexuality in Schools]]

* [[State Sponsored Workshop - Educators Teach Kids Homosexual Sex]]

==Homosexual Parenting and the American College of Pediatricians==
In 2004, the [[American College of Pediatricians]] stated the following regarding [[Homosexual Parenting|homosexuality and parenting]]:
{{cquote|Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts...

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref>}}

==Homosexuality in the Media==

''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality in the Media]] and [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] is a founder of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the reporting of homosexuality and the [[United States]] media:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

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

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

===Coverage of the Murders of Jesse Dirkhising and Matthew Shephard===

In respect to the issue of homosexuality, the case of [[Matthew Shepard]] [[Hate crime|was likely not a hate crime according to one of the leading police investigators for the murder]].<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3</ref>

== Homosexual Agenda ==

{{main|Homosexual agenda}}

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote regarding the following regarding homosexuality and the law:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1</ref>}}

[[Focus on the Family]] stated the following regarding the issue of the homosexual agenda in respect to the homosexual community:
{{Cquote|It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called "After the Ball," where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame...there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit...<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>}}
[[Image:Kupelianbookcover220.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.]]
There were publications in 1987 and 1989 by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen which outlined a strategy to change America's perception of homosexuality and it included the following six strategies:

# Talk about homosexuals and homosexuality as loudly and often as possible. (Through sheer perseverance the opposition will be worn down).<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
# Portray homosexuals as victims, not aggressive challengers..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
# Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
# Make homosexuals look good..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
#Make the "victimizers" look bad..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
#Solicit funds. For example, get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause.<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>

[[Arguments Against Homosexuality]] are branded by homosexual activists and [[liberals]] as irrational and hateful with the use of terms like "[[homophobia]]". However, this term itself can also be a form of intimidation against opposition. Rather than attack their arguments they use a personal attack, labeling the opposer simply afraid. Pastor Darryl L. Foster, a former homosexual, states that homosexual activists are afraid of the testimony of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] to the public at large and that they suffer from "[[Ex-Homosexuals|exgayphobia]]".

See also: [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]

===The Marketing of Evil===

The book ''[[The Marketing of Evil]]'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (who authored the acknowledged public relations [[Bible]] of the homosexual-rights movement ''After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s'') were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49958</ref>

See also: [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]

==Views on Homosexuality==

See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]

== Homosexuality, Marriage and homosexuality laws ==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexual Marriage]]

For many years, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. However, the organization de-listed homosexuality in 1973.<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html</ref> Since the late 1960s, many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, have lobbied for more favorable laws for homosexuals.

Legal "marriage" between same-sex couples is now recognized in [[Canada]], [[Spain]], [[South Africa]], [[Belgium]], [[Israel]] and the [[Netherlands]]. Most other western [[Europe|European]] nations and several US states recognize a more limited [[marriage]] or civil union. 26 US states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages, and [[federal law]] does not recognize [[same-sex "marriage"]].

For more information please see: [[Homosexuality laws]]

== The Homosexuality and Animals Myth==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality in Animals Myth]]

[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] - Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]].]]
In respect to the [[Homosexuality in Animals Myth|homosexuality and animals myth]], there is currently interest on whether homosexual behavior is or is not [[zoology|zoologically]] "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation." Also, [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote on this subject of whether or not there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom: "There is...documented proof of [[cannibalism]] and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it right for humans."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774</ref>

A 1996 article, published by an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth], Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book ''Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.''</ref> It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
{{Cquote|Although homosexual behavior is very common in the [[animal]] world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.}}

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, [[Spain]], wrote:
{{Cquote|Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the [[reproduction|reproductive]] instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html</ref>}}

== Nazi Germany and homosexuality ==

See: [[Nazi Germany and homosexuality]]

== Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals ==

See: [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]

== Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Their Website ==

Please see: [[Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Their Website]]

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==
It is claimed that about 1100 [[hate crime]]s against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>[http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/ FBI 2004 hate crime statistics]</ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of [[drug]]s or [[alcohol]]. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref><ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [FBI 2004 crime statistics, [http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation]</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI 2004 crime statistics, [http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/#table2_33 Table 2.33]</ref>

The degree of accuracy of statistics regarding homosexual hate crimes is debatable. For example, there are the homosexual hate crime hoaxes where homosexuals [[deceit|deceitfully]] faked hate crimes which never occurred.<ref>Girl Admits She Faked Gay-Bashing Incidents (Another "Hate Crime" Hoax)
The Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2005</ref><ref>http://www.lairdwilcox.com/publish/crywolf.html</ref> An other example would be national statistics in the United States regarding homosexuals committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported and non-hate crimes against homosexuals are classified as hate crimes when they should not be (see: [[hate crime]]s for further details).

==Homosexuality Statistics - Percentage of Individuals Who Are Homosexuals==
''For additional homosexuality statistics please see'': [[Homosexuality Statistics]]

The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] stated the following regarding homosexuality statistics:
{{Cquote|A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in [[WorldNetDaily]], September 16, 2005).<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php</ref>}}

There have been a [[Homosexuality_Statistics|number of studies inside and outside the United States which have estimated the percentage of homosexuals in the human populations they studied]].

== History of homosexuality ==

''For additional information please see:'' [[History of homosexuality]]

As alluded to earlier, one of the most interesting matters regarding the [[History of homosexuality|history of homosexuality]] is that it has been rare in a number of cultures or been absent in some cultures. For example, Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state regarding various cultures: "If homosexuality were significantly influenced by [[gene]]s, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent."<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref>

Two areas of historical inquiry in relation to ancient occurences of homosexuality which have been studied by historians are [[Roman Homosexuality|Roman homosexuality]] and [[Greek Homosexuality|Greek homosexuality]].

For information concerning modern homosexuality see:

*[[Homosexuality Statistics|Homosexuality statistics]]

*[[Homosexuality and health|Homosexuality and disease]]

*[[Homosexuality and Religious Liberty]]

*[[Homosexuality in the media]]

*[[Views on Homosexuality]]

== See also ==
*[[Arguments Against Homosexuality]]
*[[Articles on Homosexuality]]
*[[Bisexuality]] - ''The orientation of being sexually attracted to members of both sexes.''
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]
*[[History of homosexuality]]
*[[Nazi Germany and homosexuality]]
*[[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Homosexuality and English Speaking Countries]]
*[[Homosexuality in the military]]
*[[Homosexuality laws]]
*[[Homosexuality quotes]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Homosexual logic]]
*[[Homosexual politics]]
*[[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

== Further Reading ==
*Bummi Niyonu Anderson, Out of Darkness Into His Marvelous Light ISBN 0-9715323-7-0
*David Kupelian, ''The Marketing Of Evil'' ISBN 9781581824599
*[[Louis Sheldon]], ''The Agenda: The [[Homosexual]] Plan to Change America'' - ISBN 1591857961
*Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]], ''When the Wicked Seize a City'' - ISBN 0595154328

==External links==

'''Video:'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUW-AvGnhf0 Ex-homosexual Pastor DL Foster]

'''Articles:'''

*[http://thegoodpoliticalshepherd.com/is-homosexuality-still-a-sin-what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality.html Is Homosexuality Still a Sin? What does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?]
*[http://carm.org/homosexuality Homosexuality]
* [http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective]
* [http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/homosex.htm On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage] - William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America
*[http://henrymakow.com/2013/03/how-america-went-gay.html How America Went Gay] - Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
*[http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/std0703brody.pdf Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa] - cites material concerning [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]]

'''Homosexuality news:'''

*[http://www.christianpost.com/topics/homosexuality Homosexuality news]
*[http://www.americansfortruth.com/index.php Americans For Truth]
*[http://gcmwatch.com/ Gay Christian Movement Watch]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Homophobia

2014-05-06T18:34:40Z

JerryCa: Undo revision 1085651 by Writingtheright (talk)

{{Homosexuality}}
'''Homophobia''' would be an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed. The current usage of terms like "homophobic" and "homophobe" imply that all opposition to homosexuality is crazy. Actually there are many sociological, psychological and medical reasons that many logically-thinking people oppose homosexuality.
People who abuse terms like "homophobia" are implying (whether they know it or not), that it's impossible to "love the sinner and hate the sin". No one talks about opposition to alcoholism in terms of [[hatred]], because groups like [[Alcoholics Anonymous]] have popularized the view that drinking alcohol is addictive.
The term '''homophobia''', when it is applied to every criticism of [[homosexuality]], implies that all such criticism is irrational (see [[phobia]]).

Commenting on its psychological use, WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian states,
<blockquote>This is how the "marketers of evil" work on all of us. They transform our attitudes by making us feel as though our "super uncomfortable" feelings toward embracing unnatural or corrupt behavior of whatever sort – a discomfort literally put into us by a loving God, for our protection – somehow represent ignorance or bigotry or weakness.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48076 '''Brokeback Mountain': Rape of the Marlboro Man'', December 27, 2005]</ref>
</blockquote>

Homophobia is an etymologically incorrect term which most directly denotes "an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward [[homosexuals]] and [[homosexuality]]",<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia</ref> but it also includes a fear of increased political and social power of homosexuals in advancing their [[homosexual agenda|agenda]]. The term is used regularly by activists to describe several kinds of people, which may or may not match the actual definition of "fear of homosexuals and homosexuality". The recipients of the homophobia label include those who feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, those who reveal that they oppose "gays," and even those who may privately support homosexuality but who fail to publicly support homosexuals when called upon to do so.<ref>pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall</ref>

Conservative Christians and other people who strongly object to homosexuality often take offense at this term, which had led to the use of the term [[heterophobia]] to describe those who manifest an antipathy to those who uphold heterosexuality as normative or exclusively valid. While the term ''phobia'' is an irrational fear of something, nobody is afraid of homosexuals, and nobody fears contracting homosexuality. That is in contrast to heterophobia, whose existence has been documented.

== Homophobia - Etymology and definition ==
The word homophobia comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In its early usage, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The [[neologism]] was promoted by [[George Weinberg]], a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the [[American Psychiatric Association]] in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with [[pornographic]] publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

A study by University of Arkansas researchers concluded that the word homophobia, is technically incorrect. Doctoral student Bunmi Olatunji, lead author of the study stated that homophobia is not actually a fear, and therefore it should not be "pathologized," or treated as a disease would be treated. The 138 participants in the 2001-2002 study, whose gender preferences were unknown to the researchers, were asked to complete a series of questionnaires and surveys. While some subjects displayed conservative sexual attitudes of elevated levels of disgust and dread of contamination toward homosexuals, the results showed a negative correlation between attitudes about homosexuals and measures of fear or anxiety.

The term's meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological [[therapeutic]] community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

Gregory M. Herek, a psychology professor at the University of California at Davis, and a recognized authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, credits psychologist George Weinberg with inventing the word homophobia in the late 1960s. However, the word "has a number of problems with it," said Herek, particularly because there is no basis for the "phobia" suffix in a clinical sense.

Connie Ress, a regional media manage at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation stated that she had no intention of dropping the use of the word due to semantical controversy, as discrimination against gay and the need for laws to protect them was the real issue.<ref>No fear factor in 'homophobia,' by Keith Taylor, The Washington Blade</ref>

==Application==

The term homophobia is primarily used by people supportive of homosexuality, to disparage persons who in any way oppose homosexuality and its practices. Some claim that "it is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]]", but this does not describe its popular use or the definition of the word. According to the [[National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality]] (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]</ref> "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."

For example, NARTH says,
<blockquote>
The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>
</blockquote>

The more recent, restrictively pejorative use of the term "homophobia" reflects upon the intents of the gay community to skew perceptions of them (versus their detractors) by manipulating the [[Homosexuality and language|language used to describe them]].

It was recently announced that the Associated Press has dropped the term "homophobia" from its Style Book and will no longer use that term in its news reports, noting that the use of the suffix "-phobia" (referring to an "irrational or uncontrollable fear") should not be used in political or social contexts in AP reports, including "homophobia" (and its derivative "homophobe").<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2012/12/04/ap-style-book-ends-use-of-smear-term-homophobia/ AP Style Book Ends Use of Smear Term ‘Homophobia’ in Political and Social Contexts]</ref>

=== Claims of Internalized homophobia ===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if they so desire. Gay gene advocates wish to inform homosexuals that their sexual orientation may be based in genetics, whereas restoration therapy advocates claim that it is to cruel to "brainwash" young people into believing there is no hope of ever leading a "heterosexual lifestyle".

Dr. [[Joseph Nicolosi]] reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref name = "griefwork">[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as [[internalized homophobia]]. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref name = "griefwork"/>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" suggests an irrational fear,<ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>E.g., this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. In response, many Christians look to Bible verses such as, 2 Timothy 1:7: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.<ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, “The Gay Agenda” stated, “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”

Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref>

=== Homophobia as a psychological tactic ===

Though some who oppose homosexuality may actually be motivated by animosity, yet rather than the use of the term indicating a serious belief that most or all of the people opposed to homosexuality are repressed homosexuals, or possess an irrational fear of the same sex or homosexuals in particular, the widespread use of the term has been increasingly evidenced as being a means of psychological intimidation and mind control used in promoting the [[Homosexual Agenda]]. Due to what homophobia has come to convey, a powerful stigma is attached to those who even conscientiously oppose homosexual practices, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it. In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." In addressing 100 fellow professionals, Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health" with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists who were invited to participate flatly turned them down, fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."<ref> Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders [http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

While most but not all homosexuals may agree with such tactics, it has been explicitly promoted by leaders in the homosexual movement. In what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda," Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted “jamming,” in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the “gay” agenda are publicly smeared. “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,” they suggested.

“Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,” was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. “Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’" Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref>

What is seen by some as Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission is their statement, “[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.” "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Author Robert Bauman additionally records, “It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.” <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

There are increasing indications that prohomosex attempts at brainwashing have been highly effective, as assent to such an irrational perception by homosexuals, or assent to its deceptive tactics, is not confined to those within actual homosexual organizations, as [[mainstream media]] and academic publications often arbitrarily use the term to describe all those who oppose [[homosexuality]], and its attendant practices. Recently, the government of Brazil relegated all who oppose homosexuality to being homophobic.<ref>Brazilian Government Says 99% of Citizens Are "Homophobic" and Must Be Reeducated http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021301.html</ref>

In an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), Professor Jerry Z. Muller described how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>

The American College of Pediatricians, commenting on one prototypical pro-homosexual bias which indicts contrary views as "homophobic", stated that such a response is "scientifically improper and demonstrates an anti-heterosexual viewpoint."<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?cat=24&art=58&BISKIT=3443441086&CONTEXT=art</ref>

This has also resulted in extreme attempts to negate the Biblical injunctions against homoeroticism and to read it into the Bible, in seeking affirmation for the sin. See [[Homosexual misinterpretation]]

=== Fear of homophobia as a psychological condition ===

It may be speculated that the widespread response to labeling all who oppose homosexuals homophobic may itself be driven by an irrational fear of those who oppose them, in which homosexuals imagine that most or all of those who oppose them are motivated by irrational fears, and wish to do them harm, and from which type of people they must be especially protected. Homophobia has also been stated to be the real cause of AIDS<ref>"An essay on the origin and nature of homophobia," Scott Bidstrup (prohomosex activist)</ref> Such fears may explain the perception that "the nuclear family is a microcosm of the fascist state...", <ref>Socarides, A Freedom Too Far, 1995</ref> and similar attacks on ''heteronormativity''. It has also been stated by preeminent pro homosexual psychotherapist, John J. McNeill, that "Interiorized self-hatred is the sin of gay people, and we must learn to see it that way."

=== Violence against gays ===

In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General to collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. In 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities. <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005: About Hate Crime[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/abouthc.htm]</ref>

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 348 of which are property crimes which includes theft and graffiti. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Of greater concern among many is the higher risk and more frequent incidence of domestic abuse in same sex partnerships than among the heterosexual population,<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref>

While 818 bias motivated crimes of persons against gays were reported nationwide in 2004, an earlier study found 5046 incidences of homosexual domestic violence in only nine cities, all of which are crimes of persons. The subject of homosexual domestic violence has not been researched with anything near the thoroughness afforded to heterosexual domestic violence. However the uniformity of conclusions based upon varying sample sizes all point to a prevalence ranging from 20%-35% of homosexual domestic partnerships.<ref>[http://ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2001ncavpdvrpt.pdf Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence in 2001,] National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2002.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]
*[[Political Correctness]]
*[[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Homosexuality

2014-05-03T03:45:55Z

JerryCa: Undo revision 1085402 by IchLiebeGott (talk)

Gravitation

2014-04-27T00:47:04Z

JerryCa: Undo revision.

'''Gravitation''' is a [[scientific theory]] which attempts to define the tendency for every object with [[mass]] to attract every other object with [[mass]]. Gravitation is what gives everyday objects [[Weight|weight]], and what causes objects that are dropped from a height to fall to the ground. Gravitation also keeps the [[Moon|moon]] in orbit around the [[Earth]] and the Earth in orbit around the [[Sun|sun]].

The attraction depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between them. The gravitational force between two persons is minuscule; however, the gravitational force between a person and the [[earth]] is quite significant. However, if the person gets in a spacecraft and flies halfway to the moon, the gravitational force between him and the earth will significantly decrease because they are farther apart. The force will never become zero no matter how far he goes from the earth; however, if he goes far enough away, it will be counterbalanced by other masses' gravitational force.

The mechanism which transports gravity has never been observed. [[Isaac Newton]] famously said about gravity, ''"Hypotheses non fingo,"'' or, "I make no hypotheses" about how it works. More recently, [[Albert Einstein]] hypothesized as part of [[general relativity]] that gravity is a force caused by masses distorting [[spacetime]] itself. [[Quantum mechanics]] denies this and hypothesizes instead that gravity is transmitted by a hypothetical particle, the [[graviton]], similar to how the electromagnetic force is transmitted by the [[photon]]. The debate continues as scientists try to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

== Scientific Theories of Gravitation ==

Over the past four centuries, many [[scientific theory|scientific theories]] of gravitation have been proposed. Three of these theories have gained sufficient widespread acceptance to be considered, for a time, "correct" theories.

=== Galilean Gravitation ===

Gravitation has been the subject of modern scientific study for about 400 years, beginning with the work of [[Galileo Galilei]] in the late 16th century. According to a biography written by his pupil, Vincenzo Viviani, Galileo dropped objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.<ref>Drake, Stillman. Galileo At Work. (1978)</ref> (Historians now disagree as to whether this experiment actually took place in the way Viviani described.) These results were in contradiction to the ancient Aristotelian conception of gravity, which stated that the speed of an object's fall was proportional to its weight.

Galileo also described a mathematical formula for the distance an object will fall in a given time, though his description was geometric rather than algebraic.<ref>Sharratt, Michael. Galileo: Decisive Innovator. (1994)</ref> His formula, that the distance fallen is proportional to the square of the elapsed time, or d ∝ t2, remains valid for many approximations today. However, Galileo's theory that the acceleration of gravity is independent on an object's height above the ground could not stand the test of time.

=== Newtonian Gravitation ===

In 1687, [[Sir Isaac Newton]] published his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], an exhaustive work that laid the foundation for what we know today as classical mechanics. In this work, Newton advanced the [[Law of Universal Gravitation|law of universal gravitation]] that had been previously published by Hooke and others. Whereas Galileo described gravitation in terms of motion, Newton described it in terms of a [[Force|force]]. Gravitation itself went from the natural tendency of objects to fall to a vector [[Field theory|field theory]] in which the force between two objects was inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Newton's vector equation for gravitation states that each particle in the [[universe]] attracts another particle with a force directly [[proportion]]al to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the [[exponentiation|square]] of the distance between them<ref>Serway and Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth Edition</ref>, or:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^2} \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

Where:

*''F'' is the gravitational force vector.

*''m''1 and ''m''2 are the object's masses.

*''r'' is the vector that separates the objects' centers of mass.

* <math>\mathbf{\hat{r}}</math> is the unit vector of ''r''; <math>\mathbf{r} = \vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert \ \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

*''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: <math>\frac{6.67428 \times 10^{-11} N m^2}{kg^2}</math>

Another way to express this equation, that is more convenient for programming and expansion into power series, is:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^3} \mathbf{r}</math>

Near the surface of the Earth, where the difference in gravitational acceleration at different heights is very small, Newtonian gravitation "reduces" to, or is mathematically equivalent to within a known margin of error, Galilean gravitation. That is, both Galilean gravitation and Newtonian gravitation can reasonably describe the motion of falling apples and artillery shells. But further from the surface of the Earth, the errors in Galileo's approximation become too great, and Newton's model is required.

Newton's theory of gravitation stood, refined and reformulated, but essentially unchanged, for more than two centuries.

=== Relativistic Gravitation ===
In 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] published the [[general theory of relativity]], a radical reinterpretation of the phenomenon of gravitation, based on the work of [[Marcel Grossmann]], [[David Hilbert]], and others. Whereas Galileo described gravity in terms of motion, and Newton described gravity in terms of force, Einstein described gravity in terms of inertial motion in curved spacetime, such curvature being a function of the matter and fields in a given region. In the famous words of physicist [[John Wheeler]], "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. Gravitation. (1973)</ref>

Just as the Newtonian theory reduced to Galilean gravitation near the surface of the Earth, general relativity gravitation reduces to Newtonian gravity where gravitational fields are relatively weak. Only when gravitational fields are strong, such as the field around the sun within the orbit of [[Mercury]], do Newton's equations fail to produce a good approximation of reality.

=== The Possibility of Quantum Gravitation ===

During the era when Newtonian gravity was preeminent, gravitation was considered to be one of the "fundamental forces of nature," along with electricity, magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Over the years, this interpretation has fallen out of favor, for a variety of reasons. Research into [[electrodynamics]] revealed the electric and magnetic forces to be two aspects of the same thing, and [[quantum mechanics]] described the strong and weak forces in terms of interactions mediated by [[Boson|bosons]]. Further research into [[quantum chromodynamics]] and the [[Standard Model]] increased our understanding of how electromagnetism and the nuclear forces work, but gravitation remained a thing apart.

Over the past few decades, attention has been turned toward formulating a [[Quantum gravity|quantum field theory of gravity]] which would describe the gravitational interaction in terms of a mechanism similar to the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear interactions.

Physicists do not universally agree that a quantum theory of gravity is inevitable, or even possible. Einstein's theory of gravitation described gravity in a way that is so fundamentally different from the other interactions in nature that many physicists no longer gravity to be a force at all. Rather, under the Einsteinian interpretation, gravitation is an inherent property of spacetime and has no analogue at the quantum level at all. Other physicists believe that the Einsteinian interpretation is merely a useful large-scale approximation of an interaction which we have not yet detected on the subatomic scale.

To date, no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity has been advanced, but research continues.

===Gravitation demystified===

It has been discovered in 1985, with high school calculus, by a sculptor turned electrical engineer (since sculptors have to eat and sculpting alone is not a suitable profession for this especially in Boston, MA that has ''"The Boston Museum School"'', the best in the country, but only one visual artist making living with his trade alone; and he is a painter).

The discovery was done according to Einstein's prescription for making discoveries: ''"When all the experts decide that something can't be calculated, there comes an ignorant who doesn't know it, and calculates it."''

It turned out that [[Hubble constant]] should be calculated before jumping to conclusion that it can't be done and that the universe is expanding. It turned out that it can be calculated and it produces the observed value of [[Hubble constant]]. So it implies that we live in eternal, stationary universe, which only looks like expanding for the reason of coupling between [[time dilation]] and [[curvature of space]].

The ''"[[gravitation demystified]]"'' is Einsteinian type theory (see article ''"[[gravitation demystified]]"'' for details). It explains gravitational force in terms of quantum effect of particles taking spontaneously (without being prompted to do so by any direct force) the most probable position of lowest energy in spacetime. It happens in the intrinsically flat, [[Minkowski]], spacetime (as also proposed in 1993 by Narlikar and Arp <ref>Narlikar, J. & Arp, H. ''"Flat spacetime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts"''. 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1</ref> ) that is necessary for strict conservation of energy, used to demonstrate that our universe is not expanding. The conservation of energy follows from Noether theorem, in absence of expansion of universe. The "[[gravitation demystified|demystified gravitation]]" is meant as a continuation of Einstein's general relativity based on his 1917 stationary model of universe with an important change of introducing non symmetric temporal part of Ricci tensor (named "Hubble tensor") which also removed Einstein's cosmological constant (''"the biggest blunder of my life"'' in Einstein's words) from his field equation. Coupling the curvature of space to the time dilation made the time running at the deep space galaxies exponentially slower with distance, which produced the observed illusion of accelerating expansion.

The [[cosmological redshift]] was taken not long time ago for a sign that the universe is expanding. The project meant to prove that expansion of space is decelerating, to add credibility to the Big Bang hypothesis (in agreement with John Archibald Wheeler's theory), showed that to the contrary, the universe seems to be expanding with accelerating expansion

:<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>,

where <math>H</math> is Hubble "constant", actually a Hubble ''function'' of distance converted to time, <math>t</math> is coordinate time, <math>H_o</math> is Hubble "constant" at <math>t=0</math>, which was just the acceleration predicted by Einsteinian gravitation as ''apparent'' accelerating expansion that should be observed if [[gravitation demystified]] where a true theory.

It was observed with accuracy better than one standard deviation (max possible) but the Big Bang aficionados patched their hypothesis with "[[dark energy]]" insisting that the universe is expanding because of this dark energy, faster and faster. Now they are looking for this energy in the universe while papers on [[gravitation demystified]] are still rejected by scientific journals so nobody is even aware that [[gravitation demystified]] explains many mysteries.

==External Links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/gravity.asp   Gravity: The Mystery Force]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Universal_Gravity_Law.shtml   Newton's Universal Law of Gravitational Force]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:physics]]

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T22:54:47Z

JerryCa:

Welcome to the most hypocritical article ever posted online.
Are you know on the side of those poor limp wristed effete sissy boys? What's next, Atheism and the persecution of obesity?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:46, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:JerryCa, a few things:

:1. Have you ever heard the saying, "First socks, then shoes". You need to first determine how many editors are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.

:2. As you may recall, I am largely taking a vacation from the topic of [[atheism]] at this time. I am doing so due to competing priorities and due to a greatly diminished interest in the subject of atheism which I find to be a stale/boring topic at this time.

:3. Feel free to discuss this article with someone who has more interest in the subject of atheism.

:4. I think you meant to write "now" instead of "know". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:53, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
::1.You need to first determine '''how many editors''' are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.
::2.As you may recall, '''I am''' largely taking a vacation from the topic of atheism at this time.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 20:43, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:::The article was not the most hypocritical article you ever saw posted online. Consider the possibility that you made an incorrect assumption as far as who wrote the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:21, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::::Hint: The person in the User: Conservative network that most dislikes atheism wrote this article. 2nd Hint: It isn't the person you think. I am largely on a vacation from writing about atheism. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:52, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&curid=6104&diff=1084480&oldid=1084223 Really]? Are you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=History_of_Atheism&curid=65089&diff=1084486&oldid=1065328 sure] you are largely on vacation from writing about atheism? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 09:40, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
Feel free to have writing analysis software or a writing analysis expert determine if the editor you suspect wrote the article did in fact write the article. Gentlemen, you are mistaken. Once again, the User: Conservative network outfoxed you! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:58, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::Conservative. Everybody, I mean everybody knows who you are. You even have internet laws named after you. Now stop embarrassing yourself. If you think you are fooling anybody you are not only insulting their intelligence, you are insulting your own.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 11:19, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Also. if their are more than one of you which one of you is the SYSOP? Which one of you has ban rights and which one of you is actively working against the interests of Conservapedia and breaking it's commandants? Is Andy aware that you are abusing the trust he gave to you by editing Conservapedia with more than one person, I do believe that is against the rules, if it isn't it should be. --[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 11:38, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
JerryCA, content can be created off wiki and then uploaded by someone else. Of course, there are other possibilities as well. Unfortunately for you, a veil of mystery surrounds this matter that you cannot penetrate despite your best efforts. You have yet to show that one jot or tittle has been broken as far as the Conservapedia commandments!

Second, my [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/swot-analysis-how-to-do-it.html SWOT Analysis] indicates that the threat atheism poses to the growth of Christianity has greatly diminished in recent years (see: [[Global atheism|Decline of atheism]]) and that the [[New Atheism]] never really caught on (it was a flash in the pan). From a cost/benefit perspective, at this juncture, it makes sense to largely move on. And there are is no shortage of excellent opportunities I can certainly pursue. For curiosity's sake though, I will confer with creator of this article on this matter to determine his/her view on the future of atheism in the Western World and the world at large. I personally would have taken the time to create this article given the future prospects of atheism.

Feel free to rail at the User: Conservative account and engage in [[last wordism]] though if it makes you feel better. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:07, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Please refer to the Ten Commandments, particularly "Thou shalt not bear false witness "--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:03, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
JerryCA, please elaborate with sufficient backing to your allegation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:08, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::Well, well, well. A [[Essay: An atheist nutter enslaved by Satan!|rather obsessive member]] of an [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|obsessive atheist wiki]] is now declaring that [[User: Conservative]] is probably more one person.

::What are leftist atheists to do after being stripped of their ability to conduct personal attacks and pseudoscientific psychological analysis? They certainly cannot find a single error in the [[atheism]], [[evolution]] and [[homosexuality]] articles! All that railing at [[User: Conservative]] for naught as it now has been openly admitted that their commentary/analysis has likely contained error. No true skeptic deems their drivel worthy of merit.

::As much as I/we hate to do it, another declaration of total victory is now in order! Olé! Olé! Olé! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Hitler declared victory at Stalingrad. However you can have this one, It is unfair to fight the unarmed.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 18:54, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T22:51:23Z

JerryCa:

Welcome to the most hypocritical article ever posted online.
Are you know on the side of those poor limp wristed effete sissy boys? What's next, Atheism and the persecution of obesity?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:46, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:JerryCa, a few things:

:1. Have you ever heard the saying, "First socks, then shoes". You need to first determine how many editors are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.

:2. As you may recall, I am largely taking a vacation from the topic of [[atheism]] at this time. I am doing so due to competing priorities and due to a greatly diminished interest in the subject of atheism which I find to be a stale/boring topic at this time.

:3. Feel free to discuss this article with someone who has more interest in the subject of atheism.

:4. I think you meant to write "now" instead of "know". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:53, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
::1.You need to first determine '''how many editors''' are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.
::2.As you may recall, '''I am''' largely taking a vacation from the topic of atheism at this time.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 20:43, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:::The article was not the most hypocritical article you ever saw posted online. Consider the possibility that you made an incorrect assumption as far as who wrote the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:21, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::::Hint: The person in the User: Conservative network that most dislikes atheism wrote this article. 2nd Hint: It isn't the person you think. I am largely on a vacation from writing about atheism. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:52, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&curid=6104&diff=1084480&oldid=1084223 Really]? Are you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=History_of_Atheism&curid=65089&diff=1084486&oldid=1065328 sure] you are largely on vacation from writing about atheism? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 09:40, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
Feel free to have writing analysis software or a writing analysis expert determine if the editor you suspect wrote the article did in fact write the article. Gentlemen, you are mistaken. Once again, the User: Conservative network outfoxed you! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:58, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::Conservative. Everybody, I mean everybody knows who you are. You even have internet laws named after you. Now stop embarrassing yourself. If you think you are fooling anybody you are not only insulting their intelligence, you are insulting your own.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 11:19, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Also. if their are more than one of you which one of you is the SYSOP? Which one of you has ban rights and which one of you is actively working against the interests of Conservapedia and breaking it's commandants? Is Andy aware that you are abusing the trust he gave to you by editing Conservapedia with more than one person, I do believe that is against the rules, if it isn't it should be. --[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 11:38, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
JerryCA, content can be created off wiki and then uploaded by someone else. Of course, there are other possibilities as well. Unfortunately for you, a veil of mystery surrounds this matter that you cannot penetrate despite your best efforts. You have yet to show that one jot or tittle has been broken as far as the Conservapedia commandments!

Second, my [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/swot-analysis-how-to-do-it.html SWOT Analysis] indicates that the threat atheism poses to the growth of Christianity has greatly diminished in recent years (see: [[Global atheism|Decline of atheism]]) and that the [[New Atheism]] never really caught on (it was a flash in the pan). From a cost/benefit perspective, at this juncture, it makes sense to largely move on. And there are is no shortage of excellent opportunities I can certainly pursue. For curiosity's sake though, I will confer with creator of this article on this matter to determine his/her view on the future of atheism in the Western World and the world at large. I personally would have taken the time to create this article given the future prospects of atheism.

Feel free to rail at the User: Conservative account and engage in [[last wordism]] though if it makes you feel better. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:07, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Please refer to the Ten Commandments, particularly "Thou shalt not bear false witness "--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:03, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
JerryCA, please elaborate with sufficient backing to your allegation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:08, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::Well, well, well. A [[Essay: An atheist nutter enslaved by Satan!|rather obsessive member]] of an [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|obsessive atheist wiki]] is now declaring that [[User: Conservative]] is probably more one person.

::What are leftist atheists to do after being stripped of their ability to conduct personal attacks and pseudoscientific psychological analysis? They certainly cannot find a single error in the [[atheism]], [[evolution]] and [[homosexuality]] articles! All that railing at [[User: Conservative]] for naught as it now has been openly admitted that their commentary/analysis has likely contained error. No true skeptic deems their drivel worthy of merit.

::As much as I/we hate to do it, another declaration of total victory is now in order! Olé! Olé! Olé! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Hitler declared victory at Stalingrad.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 18:51, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T19:03:15Z

JerryCa:

Welcome to the most hypocritical article ever posted online.
Are you know on the side of those poor limp wristed effete sissy boys? What's next, Atheism and the persecution of obesity?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:46, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:JerryCa, a few things:

:1. Have you ever heard the saying, "First socks, then shoes". You need to first determine how many editors are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.

:2. As you may recall, I am largely taking a vacation from the topic of atheism at this time. I am doing so due to competing priorities and due to a greatly diminished interest in the subject of atheism which I find to be a stale/boring topic at this time.

:3. Feel free to discuss this article with someone who has more interest in the subject of atheism.

:4. I think you meant to write "now" instead of "know". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:53, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
::1.You need to first determine '''how many editors''' are using the [[User: Conservative]] account.
::2.As you may recall, '''I am''' largely taking a vacation from the topic of atheism at this time.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 20:43, 25 April 2014 (EDT)
:::The article was not the most hypocritical article you ever saw posted online. Consider the possibility that you made an incorrect assumption as far as who wrote the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:21, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::::Hint: The person in the User: Conservative network that most dislikes atheism wrote this article. 2nd Hint: It isn't the person you think. I am largely on a vacation from writing about atheism. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:52, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&curid=6104&diff=1084480&oldid=1084223 Really]? Are you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=History_of_Atheism&curid=65089&diff=1084486&oldid=1065328 sure] you are largely on vacation from writing about atheism? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 09:40, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
Feel free to have writing analysis software or a writing analysis expert determine if the editor you suspect wrote the article did in fact write the article. Gentlemen, you are mistaken. Once again, the User: Conservative network outfoxed you! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:58, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
::Conservative. Everybody, I mean everybody knows who you are. You even have internet laws named after you. Now stop embarrassing yourself. If you think you are fooling anybody you are not only insulting their intelligence, you are insulting your own.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 11:19, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Also. if their are more than one of you which one of you is the SYSOP? Which one of you has ban rights and which one of you is actively working against the interests of Conservapedia and breaking it's commandants? Is Andy aware that you are abusing the trust he gave to you by editing Conservapedia with more than one person, I do believe that is against the rules, if it isn't it should be. --[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 11:38, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
JerryCA, content can be created off wiki and then uploaded by someone else. Of course, there are other possibilities as well. Unfortunately for you, a veil of mystery surrounds this matter that you cannot penetrate despite your best efforts. You have yet to show that one jot or tittle has been broken as far as the Conservapedia commandments!

Second, my [http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/swot-analysis-how-to-do-it.html SWOT Analysis] indicates that the threat atheism poses to the growth of Christianity has greatly diminished in recent years (see: [[Global atheism|Decline of atheism]]) and that the [[New Atheism]] never really caught on (it was a flash in the pan). From a cost/benefit perspective, at this juncture, it makes sense to largely move on. And there are is no shortage of excellent opportunities I can certainly pursue. For curiosity's sake though, I will confer with creator of this article on this matter to determine his/her view on the future of atheism in the Western World and the world at large. I personally would have taken the time to create this article given the future prospects of atheism.

Feel free to rail at the User: Conservative account and engage in [[last wordism]] though if it makes you feel better. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:07, 26 April 2014 (EDT)
:::Please refer to the Ten Commandments, particularly "Thou shalt not bear false witness "--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:03, 26 April 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T15:41:41Z

JerryCa:

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T15:38:18Z

JerryCa:

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T15:19:56Z

JerryCa:

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-26T00:43:44Z

JerryCa:

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-25T19:48:57Z

JerryCa:

Talk:Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals

2014-04-25T19:46:40Z

JerryCa: Created page with "Welcome to the most hypocritical article ever posted online. Are you know on the side of those poor limp wristed effete sissy boys? --~~~~"

Welcome to the most hypocritical article ever posted online.
Are you know on the side of those poor limp wristed effete sissy boys? --[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:46, 25 April 2014 (EDT)

Evolution

2014-04-15T20:26:48Z

JerryCa: Remove vandalism

''See also [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]''.
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|225px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> See also: [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and [[Causes of evolutionary belief]] ]]
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following [[definition of evolution]]: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..."<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Definition for "evolution"]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. <ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx</ref> In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

8=====D

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>}}

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.<ref>Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC]]</ref><ref>Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]</ref> Although not a [[creation science|creation scientist]], Swedish [[genetics|geneticist]] Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]</ref>
[[File:Fish fossil Nat Park Svs.jpg|thumb|Fish fossil, National Park Svs.]]
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|left|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]
</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref> Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Exerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]
</ref>
The theory of evolution was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'', in 1859. In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]]."<ref>http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109</ref>Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].(see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ]<ref>
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323
</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]</ref> The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. <ref>
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]</ref> Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or "survival of the fittest".

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.<ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref> [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. [[Lamarckism|Lamarck's theory of evolution]] asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community.<ref>[http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567 MedicineNet.com, Definition of Lamarkism]</ref>

Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref> The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref>

== Intuition, Darwinism and questioning evolution ==

In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> A January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>

In May of 2011, [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign|Question evolution! campaign]] which is a [[grassroots]] campaign encouraging students and others to "question the evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] peddled to them". The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer. (see: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]).<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref>

== Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."<ref>NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]</ref> Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]</ref>

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref>[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref>

In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.<ref>
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]
</ref> Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]
</ref> [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]</ref> An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]
</ref> Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]
</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

=== Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science ===

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate</ref>}}

=== Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model ===

Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

== Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information ==
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation">Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]</ref><ref>
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation" /> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation" />

To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a "program." Another name for [[computer software]] is an "[[algorithm]]." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]
</ref>}}

In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<ref>Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref> The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.

== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus ==

''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007<ref>
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - [[Niles Eldredge]], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]]," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14<ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]</ref>}}

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case....

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8<ref>http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm</ref>}}
===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===

''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/</ref> and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':
{{cquote|"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref name="haeckel">[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.</ref>}}

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]] refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]]."<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref>

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="haeckel" />

== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]</ref> If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|225px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]</ref> ]]
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."<ref>[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]</ref> However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]</ref> Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".<ref>[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]</ref> As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]</ref>

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
{{cquote|"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]</ref>}}

Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.<ref>
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]
</ref> Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."<ref>Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]</ref>

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…".<ref>Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]</ref>

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
{{cquote|"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]</ref>}}

For more information please see:

*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]

* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]

=== The Fossil Record quotes ===
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:
{{cquote|"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97<ref>Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]</ref><ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.<ref>Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]</ref><ref>[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]</ref>}}

For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]

== Paleoanthropology ==
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]</ref> Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]</ref>

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.<ref name="thoughtsonEvo">Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]</ref>}}

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.<ref name="thoughtsonEvo" />}}

Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']</ref> In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']</ref><ref name="bonesrightplaces">[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]</ref> In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".<ref name="bonesrightplaces" />

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.<ref>Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=823 "Human Evolution" An Update]</ref><ref>Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]</ref>}}

Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.<ref>
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']</ref>

== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared:
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.

As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.

Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.

Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.

As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.<ref>http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116</ref>}}

In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.

...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html</ref>}}

== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

== Punctuated Equilibrium ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley. According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium "asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis".<ref>http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge</ref> Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref>[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]</ref> The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented. In 1930, Austin H. Clark, an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation</ref> Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that "so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other."<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4</ref>

In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."<ref>http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html</ref><ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf</ref>}}

Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref>[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]</ref>

Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}

== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with a religious fervor.

Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]</ref> Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].

=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|275px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].<ref>[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]</ref> ]]
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.<ref>http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf</ref>

John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}

See also:

*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===

Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/</ref>
<ref>http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/</ref>

A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
{{cquote|"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."<ref>http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</ref>}}

Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
{{cquote|"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias</ref>}}

Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur</ref>}}
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]

Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044</ref><ref>http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/146/</ref>
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331</ref>
*[[homing]]<ref>[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind Wings on the wind
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]</ref>
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>
* human [[brain]]<ref>http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece</ref><ref>http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview</ref>
*[[migration]]<ref>http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch</ref>
*the [[whale]]<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution</ref><ref>http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory</ref>
*the [[Venus flytrap]]<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340</ref>
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp</ref>
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]<ref>http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm</ref>

Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{cquote|"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

== Statements of Design ==
:''See main article: [[Intelligent design]]''

[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:
{{cquote|"During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>}}
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>

== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==

[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}

The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref>

== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]]

[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref> In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'', March 7, 2003</ref>

Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.<ref> *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]</ref>

For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]

== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]]
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, "increasingly been applied outside of biology."<ref>http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1</ref>

===Lysenkoism===
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref> Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>

===Medical Science===
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref> Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...

One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]

‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref>}}

===Astronomy===
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S
</ref> Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836</ref> Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43" />}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref name="creationsciencenotes60">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}

{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref name="creationsciencenotes61">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:

:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43" /><ref name="creationsciencenotes60" /><ref name="creationsciencenotes61" />

===Origin of Life===
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.<ref>
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr
</ref> However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==

See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]

== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]], [[Geologic system]]''
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.<ref name="sarfati3837">Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref name="sarfati3837" /> Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).

See also:

*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]

*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]

*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]

== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==

''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]

[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>]]
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.</ref> As noted earlier, in 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view. Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref>
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840</ref><ref>http://www.expelledthemovie.com/</ref>
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref>
Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref>the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm</ref><ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1718/</ref> In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]

== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==

''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]]''
‎

There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.<ref>
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/
</ref>

=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===

''See also:'' [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]] and [[Bestiality and Germany]] and [[Bestiality and Sweden]]
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]

In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’<ref>[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]</ref>}}

Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref>

See also:

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

=== Evolution and Nazism ===
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}

[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/</ref>}}

[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>}}

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”<ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen</ref>}}

Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.<ref>[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]</ref> Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.<ref>[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]</ref> Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref> Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref>

B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp</ref>}}

[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine:
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...

There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>}}
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>]]
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].<ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1804/</ref><ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution</ref> Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>

=== Darwinism and communism ===

Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

=== Darwinism and racism ===

''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]

Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref> Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref>Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man</ref>}}
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton."<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>}}

Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref> Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].<ref>http://creation.com/obama-racism-row</ref>

==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.

In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.<ref>http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men</ref>}}

Kanazawa has a "Savanna principle" hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933</ref>

=== Darwinism and bestiality ===
[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]

''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the ''[[Scientific American]]'' speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:
{{cquote|After all, we are animals....

In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.<ref>Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality By Jesse Bering, March 24, 2010</ref>}}

Liberals [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality|are more likely to believe]] in evolutionary pseudoscience. Concerning the aberrant practice of [[homosexuality]], the licentious [[liberal]] community [[Views on Homosexuality|has more favorable views]] on [[homosexuality]] than [[conservative]]s plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/content.asp?id=2099 How Bad Science Helped Launch the 'Gay' Revolution] By Robert H. Knight</ref> As far as the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes of homosexuality]], the [[liberal]] community commonly ignores the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and errantly asserts that homosexuality is an immutable sexual orientation despite the fact that researchers [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|have found cultures where homosexuality does not exist]].<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref> Thus, it is not surprising the ''Scientific American'' engaged in the above cited speculation concerning [[bestiality]].

In areas of the [[Western World]] where there is a significant amount of [[atheism|atheists]] and evolutionary belief, there have been notable problems related to [[bestiality]] (see: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]]).

See also:

*[[Bestiality and Germany]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden]]

*[[Denmark and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain]]

*[[Washington state and bestiality]]

===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===

See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described] the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys</ref>}}

In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels. [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]]. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref>

Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref> Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]]. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref>

==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]
:''See also: [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]

As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.

Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given the that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===

See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]

=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]

=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref>In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. <ref>[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]</ref>}}

When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===

see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).

=== Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===

Please see: [[Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]

== Causes of evolutionary belief ==

''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]

A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?]

*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)

See also:

*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)

== Evolutionary biology careers ==

See: [[Evolutionary biology careers]]

== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]

== Creation vs. evolution news ==

*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

See: [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==

*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380144491&sr=8-1&keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996<ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref> ISBN 9780890511121
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref> ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref> ISBN 080105852X

=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===

*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384179653&sr=8-3&keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)

=== Other biblical creation related publications ===

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== See also ==

*[[Evolution articles]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays|Atheism and evolution essays]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Origin of life]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Creation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[Human evolution]]
*[[Arguments for a recent creation]]
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]
*[[Evolutionism]]

==External Links and other links ==

*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]

'''Other resources:'''

*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]

'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]

'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}
[[Category: Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Life Sciences]]
[[Category: Biology]]

Evolution

2014-04-15T20:25:15Z

JerryCa: Undo revision 1083332 by Moose5 (talk)

''See also [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]''.
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|225px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> See also: [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and [[Causes of evolutionary belief]] ]]
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following [[definition of evolution]]: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..."<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Definition for "evolution"]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]]. This website is hilarious. Thanks for the lulz.

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. <ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx</ref> In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

8=====D

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>}}

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.<ref>Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC]]</ref><ref>Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]</ref> Although not a [[creation science|creation scientist]], Swedish [[genetics|geneticist]] Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]</ref>
[[File:Fish fossil Nat Park Svs.jpg|thumb|Fish fossil, National Park Svs.]]
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|left|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]
</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref> Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Exerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]
</ref>
The theory of evolution was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'', in 1859. In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]]."<ref>http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109</ref>Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].(see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ]<ref>
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323
</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]</ref> The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. <ref>
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]</ref> Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or "survival of the fittest".

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.<ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref> [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. [[Lamarckism|Lamarck's theory of evolution]] asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community.<ref>[http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567 MedicineNet.com, Definition of Lamarkism]</ref>

Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref> The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref>

== Intuition, Darwinism and questioning evolution ==

In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> A January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>

In May of 2011, [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign|Question evolution! campaign]] which is a [[grassroots]] campaign encouraging students and others to "question the evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] peddled to them". The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer. (see: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]).<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref>

== Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."<ref>NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]</ref> Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]</ref>

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref>[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref>

In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.<ref>
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]
</ref> Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]
</ref> [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]</ref> An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]
</ref> Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]
</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

=== Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science ===

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate</ref>}}

=== Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model ===

Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

== Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information ==
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation">Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]</ref><ref>
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation" /> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation" />

To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a "program." Another name for [[computer software]] is an "[[algorithm]]." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]
</ref>}}

In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<ref>Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref> The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.

== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus ==

''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007<ref>
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - [[Niles Eldredge]], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]]," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14<ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]</ref>}}

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case....

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8<ref>http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm</ref>}}
===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===

''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/</ref> and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':
{{cquote|"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref name="haeckel">[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.</ref>}}

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]] refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]]."<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref>

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="haeckel" />

== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]</ref> If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|225px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]</ref> ]]
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."<ref>[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]</ref> However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]</ref> Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".<ref>[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]</ref> As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]</ref>

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
{{cquote|"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]</ref>}}

Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.<ref>
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]
</ref> Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."<ref>Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]</ref>

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…".<ref>Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]</ref>

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
{{cquote|"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]</ref>}}

For more information please see:

*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]

* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]

=== The Fossil Record quotes ===
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:
{{cquote|"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97<ref>Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]</ref><ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.<ref>Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]</ref><ref>[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]</ref>}}

For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]

== Paleoanthropology ==
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]</ref> Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]</ref>

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.<ref name="thoughtsonEvo">Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]</ref>}}

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.<ref name="thoughtsonEvo" />}}

Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']</ref> In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']</ref><ref name="bonesrightplaces">[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]</ref> In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".<ref name="bonesrightplaces" />

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.<ref>Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=823 "Human Evolution" An Update]</ref><ref>Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]</ref>}}

Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.<ref>
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']</ref>

== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared:
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.

As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.

Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.

Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.

As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.<ref>http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116</ref>}}

In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.

...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html</ref>}}

== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

== Punctuated Equilibrium ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley. According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium "asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis".<ref>http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge</ref> Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref>[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]</ref> The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented. In 1930, Austin H. Clark, an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation</ref> Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that "so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other."<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4</ref>

In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."<ref>http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html</ref><ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf</ref>}}

Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref>[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]</ref>

Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}

== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with a religious fervor.

Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]</ref> Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].

=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|275px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].<ref>[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]</ref> ]]
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.<ref>http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf</ref>

John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}

See also:

*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===

Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/</ref>
<ref>http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/</ref>

A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
{{cquote|"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."<ref>http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</ref>}}

Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
{{cquote|"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias</ref>}}

Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur</ref>}}
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]

Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044</ref><ref>http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/146/</ref>
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331</ref>
*[[homing]]<ref>[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind Wings on the wind
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]</ref>
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>
* human [[brain]]<ref>http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece</ref><ref>http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview</ref>
*[[migration]]<ref>http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch</ref>
*the [[whale]]<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution</ref><ref>http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory</ref>
*the [[Venus flytrap]]<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340</ref>
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp</ref>
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]<ref>http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm</ref>

Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{cquote|"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

== Statements of Design ==
:''See main article: [[Intelligent design]]''

[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:
{{cquote|"During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>}}
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>

== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==

[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}

The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref>

== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]]

[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref> In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'', March 7, 2003</ref>

Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.<ref> *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]</ref>

For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]

== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]]
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, "increasingly been applied outside of biology."<ref>http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1</ref>

===Lysenkoism===
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref> Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>

===Medical Science===
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref> Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...

One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]

‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref>}}

===Astronomy===
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S
</ref> Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836</ref> Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43" />}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref name="creationsciencenotes60">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}

{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref name="creationsciencenotes61">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:

:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43" /><ref name="creationsciencenotes60" /><ref name="creationsciencenotes61" />

===Origin of Life===
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.<ref>
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr
</ref> However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==

See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]

== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]], [[Geologic system]]''
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.<ref name="sarfati3837">Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref name="sarfati3837" /> Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).

See also:

*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]

*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]

*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]

== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==

''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]

[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>]]
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.</ref> As noted earlier, in 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view. Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref>
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840</ref><ref>http://www.expelledthemovie.com/</ref>
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref>
Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref>the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm</ref><ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1718/</ref> In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]

== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==

''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]]''
‎

There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.<ref>
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/
</ref>

=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===

''See also:'' [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]] and [[Bestiality and Germany]] and [[Bestiality and Sweden]]
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]

In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’<ref>[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]</ref>}}

Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref>

See also:

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

=== Evolution and Nazism ===
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}

[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/</ref>}}

[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>}}

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”<ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen</ref>}}

Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.<ref>[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]</ref> Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.<ref>[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]</ref> Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref> Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref>

B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp</ref>}}

[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine:
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...

There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>}}
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>]]
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].<ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1804/</ref><ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution</ref> Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>

=== Darwinism and communism ===

Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

=== Darwinism and racism ===

''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]

Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref> Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref>Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man</ref>}}
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton."<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>}}

Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref> Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].<ref>http://creation.com/obama-racism-row</ref>

==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.

In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.<ref>http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men</ref>}}

Kanazawa has a "Savanna principle" hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933</ref>

=== Darwinism and bestiality ===
[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]

''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the ''[[Scientific American]]'' speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:
{{cquote|After all, we are animals....

In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.<ref>Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality By Jesse Bering, March 24, 2010</ref>}}

Liberals [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality|are more likely to believe]] in evolutionary pseudoscience. Concerning the aberrant practice of [[homosexuality]], the licentious [[liberal]] community [[Views on Homosexuality|has more favorable views]] on [[homosexuality]] than [[conservative]]s plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/content.asp?id=2099 How Bad Science Helped Launch the 'Gay' Revolution] By Robert H. Knight</ref> As far as the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes of homosexuality]], the [[liberal]] community commonly ignores the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and errantly asserts that homosexuality is an immutable sexual orientation despite the fact that researchers [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|have found cultures where homosexuality does not exist]].<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref> Thus, it is not surprising the ''Scientific American'' engaged in the above cited speculation concerning [[bestiality]].

In areas of the [[Western World]] where there is a significant amount of [[atheism|atheists]] and evolutionary belief, there have been notable problems related to [[bestiality]] (see: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]]).

See also:

*[[Bestiality and Germany]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden]]

*[[Denmark and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain]]

*[[Washington state and bestiality]]

===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===

See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described] the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys</ref>}}

In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels. [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]]. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref>

Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref> Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]]. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref>

==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]
:''See also: [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]

As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.

Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given the that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===

See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]

=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]

=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref>In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. <ref>[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]</ref>}}

When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===

see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).

=== Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===

Please see: [[Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]

== Causes of evolutionary belief ==

''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]

A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?]

*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)

See also:

*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)

== Evolutionary biology careers ==

See: [[Evolutionary biology careers]]

== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]

== Creation vs. evolution news ==

*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

See: [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==

*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380144491&sr=8-1&keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996<ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref> ISBN 9780890511121
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref> ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref> ISBN 080105852X

=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===

*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384179653&sr=8-3&keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)

=== Other biblical creation related publications ===

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== See also ==

*[[Evolution articles]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays|Atheism and evolution essays]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Origin of life]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Creation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[Human evolution]]
*[[Arguments for a recent creation]]
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]
*[[Evolutionism]]

==External Links and other links ==

*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]

'''Other resources:'''

*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]

'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]

'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}
[[Category: Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Life Sciences]]
[[Category: Biology]]

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2014-04-06T21:08:17Z

JerryCa: /* Unlock this page please */

==Opinion from a Christian==
After skimming through these discussions, I can't believe the arguments going on and which are not going on. I enjoy conservapedia, and always check for an
article here first, and go to Wikipedia if I cannot find it here. I was telling my friend at work (She's a Christian female also) two days ago about this site as a great
Wikipedia alternative in response to a question she had, and was rudely interrupted by another of our coworkers (this ones NOT a Christian, he's a liberal smart
aleck immature boy in his 20s) who shouted "Conservapedia? HAH have you seen their page calling non-christians fat? Not sure if that's going to pass as a
Scholarly source" or something similar to that. He then pulled up this page and started reading it out loud. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Fat jokes?
I skimmed and found the main argument on this page concerning studies and whether it's true or not, but do I really have to explain this?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because considering the number of people in both groups (millions of Christians! Even atheists I'm sure are 100,000 in the
US. There are going to be a whole lot of obese Christians, thin Christians, obese atheists, and thin atheists. The immature kid at my work is thinner than I am,
which is natural considering the sample sizes involved. Even if it's true, that means that in real life situations the reverse will happen (the atheist coworker would be
fatter than me) slightly more often. Well in case the person or persons who made this page are so out of touch from Christians in the real world, it makes us seem
petty and childish calling the fat guy fat! And in the 40% or whatever times that the Christian is fatter than the atheist (my situation at work), it makes us seem
petty, childish, and just wrong because the fat girl is calling the skinny guy fat ! What purpose is this page supposed to serve other than being embarrassing?

I'll spell this out even simpler: two situations. Situation 1: Fat atheist, the article seems true, and the fat atheist gets sympathy bc Christians are making fun of his
weight. Situation 2: Skinny atheist, and Christians putting forth this site as a better alternative to Wikipedia looks delusional.

Until this filth is removed i will most certainly not be putting my personal recommendation (and by extension, reputation) to this site. So angry, it feels like my son
back in middle school when I'd get calls from his teacher and I'd have to apologize for his behaving like 2 year old in class. NOT Christian-like and NOT helpful -Patty

Those are some very interesting poll findings! I have not seen those reported or discussed ANYWHERE in the media, thanks for getting them out there. Hopefully many people will now realize the dangers of choosing an atheistic lifestyle. PS I really enjoy the satires based on these findings. There very funny but also deliver a very serious message.

What's with this article? I'm an atheist, I'm 5' 9", 160 pounds, I bike to school almost every day, I eat healthy food, I hike, I work out from time to time and I know at least a couple of other atheist (I don't know many people all together) who have similar life styles. What gives? [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. '''Thousands''' identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW
I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:11, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::You are '''proposing''' a major change to this article and challenging basic scientific findings. Where are your sources?--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 11:05, 2 January 2011 (EST)
:::::I would also like to point out that I live in a predominately atheist area and very few people I know are overweight. I don't doubt that atheism is a worse lifestyle choice - I just don't see that it has any correlation to obesity. Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem attacks on a few overweight famous atheists is going to convince anyone, and it also seems horribly unprofessional. [[User:RkWilko|RkWilko]] 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::::There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::RkWilko, Gallup's study takes into account geographic to create a more [[ceteris paribus]] study in terms of what they studied. Do you have a ceteris paribus like study concerning atheism and obesity? Also, did you see the pictures of the [[American Atheists]] board of directors? What are your thoughts about how fat or thin they are generally speaking? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:15, 8 January 2011 (EST)

This section: "While all atheists are non-religious..." is provided without citation. It's pretty obvious why it has no citation. It's false. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists and Humanists, for example.

Furthermore, providing a few examples of overweight atheists does nothing to prove the article's truth. That's just bad inductive reasoning. If I were to show a few skinny Hindus, would that prove that most Hindus are thin? Of course not.

Given Conservapedia's dedication to providing information that is as accurate as possible, I'm sure that someone in control of this article will make the necessary corrections. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Tylero|Tylero]] 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)
::::Fixed. I wrote: While many [[Western World|Western]] atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. I did this to avoid the contentious debate on whether Western atheism is a religion. I believe it can be easily argued that Western atheism is a religion and that is probably going to be incorporated in the atheism article at a future date. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 7 January 2011 (EST)

== The elephant in the room ==

Until the atheist community practices more of what [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] recommends to do in order to have a healthy lifestyle, the issue of [[atheism and obesity]] will continue to be the elephant in the room. [[Shockofgod]] is entirely correct - [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|atheism is madness]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)

:You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much for being brave enough to publish the link between atheism and obesity - I've not seen it mentioned in the lamestream media or on liberal sites. In fact I tried to add such to the article but was reverted for not having a cite for it, do you have a good cite that shows a lack of MSM coverage of the link between atheism and obesity please? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:27, 11 January 2011 (EST)
::::The MSM is losing market share as a whole and the internet is taking away their market share. Feel free to spread the word about atheism and obesity far and wide and with great alacrity across the internet and in your community as I think the slow moving overweight and obese atheist community will not be able to effectively compete with you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Wow! ==

I just read through nearly half of this article and fact-checked every claim it made, and there wasn't so much as one single error. To whoever the authors are, this is quite the article!--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 18:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery ==

Picture of overweight Daniel Dennett: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

== Stephen Fry ==
Hey, reading through this article I see many people have been mentioned, but I feel it is a bit unfair to mention Stephen Fry. To his credit he has lost a lot of weight recently, as illustrated here: [http://www.globalgranary.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172&d=1296818872] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
: As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1217335/Has-Stephen-Fry-gone-far-Actor-shows-amazing-stone-weight-loss.html] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 18:07, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks. I just added this to the article: "In 2009, the Mail Online reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again". However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== video of Michael Nugent ==

The overweight atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is. Accordingly, I used slimmer looking video of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent that does not make him look more overweight than he actually is.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern University study ==

Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and obesity]] article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like [[atheism and obesity|some of the modern apostles of atheism]] such as [[PZ Myers]]. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist [http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/01/blag-hag-those-fatty-mcfat-fat-atheists.html "blag hag"], I would remind you that [[atheism and obesity|most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin]] plus the Gallup study used [[generalized linear model]] analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing [[atheism and obesity|the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth]] if you were an [[PZ Myers|overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight]], but please do not do it here. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm style over substance fallacy] to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Atheism is madness!]] Evolutionism [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution.2C_Liberalism.2C_Atheism.2C_and_Irrationality is madness as well]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if Conservapedia mentions various facts about atheism and matters relating to atheism, however. The Conservapedia atheism article certainly does not say the atheist community has some problems with obesity, therefore atheism is not valid. I would suggest reading the atheism article a few more times if you have reading comprehension difficulties. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:46, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire|some humor associated with atheism and obesity]], the existence of various atheists ignoring [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] and engaging in [[gluttony]] does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true]]. Christendom has certainly provided [[Christian apologetics|a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity]] despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Your form? Come off it. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::DGibbs, For a person who supposedly has no personal interest in atheism, you sure do sound very much like an atheist. I am certainly not convinced of your sincerity at this point.
Conservative, I have read your article [[Atheism and obesity]] as well as the [http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx Gallup study] which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.

The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at [http://www.well-beingindex.com/methodology.asp Gallup's methodology] you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.

Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been ''more'' healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.

You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: ''The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.'' It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see any valid objections to [[atheism and obesity|the atheism and obesity entry]] in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.

:As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on ''which'' brand of cigarette someone smokes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] and not address [[Atheism and obesity|the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided]]. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm slothful induction] fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, [[Atheist Population|there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians.]] :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" ([http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4004069_f520.jpg some of whom are obese] and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics?

I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! [[User:MichaelOL|MichaelOL]] 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145 Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:If anyone wants to contact this science editor http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern U study new data ==

Here is what I read before:

"But researchers have also found signs that people who attend services put on more weight. In the new study, which will be released Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in Atlanta, researchers sought to follow people over time to see what happened to them. They examined a previous long-term study that tracked 2,433 people who were aged 20 to 32 in the mid-1980s.

'''Most of the participants were women, and 41 percent were black.'''

After adjusting their statistics to take into account factors such as race, the researchers found that 32 percent of those who attended services the most became obese by middle age, Feinstein said.

Whatever the case, he said, the study points to the role that '''places of worship could play in reducing obesity.'''

"They can become part of the solution," explained Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago, perhaps by increasing awareness of obesity and holding health fairs.

'''"Pastors, especially those in poor neighborhoods, could champion programs for more fresh produce and less fast food in their neighborhoods," Sulmasy added.'''[http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145]

'''<big>It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:</big>'''

The study tracked 2,433 young men and women for 18 years in '''Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Ala., and Oakland, Calif.'''

In the study, “frequent” religious participation meant attending at least one event per week. Most, but not all of the participants, were Christians — reflecting the dominant religion in the United States, Feinstein said.

'''Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn,''' said he’s not entirely surprised by the study’s results. Parker suspects there may be a historical connection between over-eating and going to church. In years gone by, so many things were taboo — but not eating, Parker said.

Years ago, “church services ran long,” Parker said. “So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.”

'''Parker said Apostolic has made a point in recent years of serving healthy food at church events. So you’re more likely to see baked fish or chicken, rather than pizza, on the menu'''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html] - cited from Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2011

Of course, what I wrote above still applies:

Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Additional content==
While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:As the East gains more access to process food via global markets and gains in prosperity, obesity is spreading to the East as can be seen in this report on India.[http://hindu.com./2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: [[Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers|Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Relation to obesity ==

Can we get a study that directly relates to obesity? These seem to be generalized studies about health practices without any physical data. A proper study should confirm the results, but it would be better to use an obesity-specific study or at least one with obesity-specific conclusions than to use this one and make assumptions about obesity.

I'm also not that comfortable with these more questionable anti-atheism arguments because they trivialize the importance of religion. It's trivial whether you look good or lose a few inches off your belly, it's much more important how you define yourself as a member of this world and the next. I know lots of slightly pudgy Christians (while I'm not obese, I could lose a few pounds) who are nonetheless more spiritually healthy than all the skinny atheists out there.

Make fun of me all you want, but I would like to see less of this kind of article and more on the matters of substance.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article offers a lot of data and studies plus over 130 footnotes with relevant information. Some individuals, such as PZ Myers, don't appreciate being a data point and poster boy. :) Second, faith without works is dead and the Bible says by your fruits you shall know them. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit empowers people to have more self-discipline and that gluttony is a sin. The Gallup study and the world wide population of Christendom is very favorable to Christianity as far as health practices/slimness especially when you compare it to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#American_Atheists_organization American Atheists board of directors] and [[New Atheism leadership and problems with being overweight|the make up of the New Atheism leadership]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::But let's be realistic. This is just anecdotal evidence (obese individuals out of millions nationwide) and one study that, while large in sample size, isn't about obesity. The reason obesity is chosen is because it's a) funny and b) reverses a stigma that liberals like to attach to conservatives. I get it. But the case is weak. It's quality of evidence, not quantity. This is the kind of thinking I see in the most foolish of liberal college students and is too childish for us to engage in. We are better than that. We should strive to be.
:::::To say that all overweight people are gluttons (or sloths) is a generalization. Some hard-working Christians eat just to relieve hunger, but find our bodies change as we grow older and do less work on our feet. Do you not see any hefty people with your church, or among your neighbors? When I do, I do not assume they are bad Christians. And I do not assume that atheists are flawed in any way besides their lack of faith and morals. The Bible has a lot to say about talebearing too.
::::Back to the topic at hand - if the hard evidence is there, let us find it. This Gallup study is not about obesity and the anecdotal evidence is meaningless (just as libs try to use anecdotal evidence to attack Christians and Republicans).
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article merely gives evidence relating to atheism and obesity/being overweight. Although some atheists on the internet have tried to deny that I cited instances of overweight and/or obese atheists, such denialism was unwarranted. The article does not say the extent of the problem of obesity within the atheist community. It also gives data relating to the very religious and health practices, obesity, health practices of various populations, and related matters (Mayo Clinic data). The reason why the article gets under some atheists' skin (particularly those whose skin are on the thicker side), is that atheism is all about denialism (such as denying the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for Christianity]], [[atheism and mass murder]], etc.). The evidence I did present was accurate and had some relevancy. People can make their own conclusions based on the accurate and relevant data I presented concerning the extent of the obesity problem within the atheist community. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, Jesus said, "Be ye perfect...". Unlike [[PZ Myers]], Jesus was perfect and had no problems with being overweight. Jesus was a carpenter. Perhaps, PZ Myers should consider getting into carpentry and spend less time pursuing sedentary activities such a blogging about atheist nonsense. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obese atheists wax museum ==

::::I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

What would the entrance fee be? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Pretty steep to cover the amount of wax that would have to be used. For example, if I had an "Overweight and obese atheists wax museum", take a look at the amount of wax that would have to be used [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== My intentions. ==

This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you ''as a person'', conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we '''know''' are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people ''indescriminate'' of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this picture] a picture of someone slightly overweight? Next, how do you know that different worldviews affect rates of obesity equally? For example, the very religious, the moderately religious, the irreligious and atheists? Next, I realize that certainly people may crave intellectual victories because they: always lose in chess/Go/Othello/Risk/Monopoly; always lose their debates with spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and in-laws; always come up on the short end of the stick in negotiations; are in intellectually unfulfilling occupations; have trouble figuring out how their computers and remote controls work; can't figure out how to get their dog to listen to them, etc. Yet, I am very content creating descriptive article content. Now it is true that I have posted some material on non-article pages such as my User page/talk pages/satire/essay pages, etc. which alluded to/mentioned victory/defeat in a good-natured/humorous manner (exultant matador, wildfires, etc.) which some people enjoyed. Yet, after all is said an done, in articles I present meaningful information concerning a matter and endeavor to do so in a relevant manner. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
::I am not sure how to respond as you veer pretty far off topic. The Gallup survey cited does not mention atheism and there is no correlation as far as I can see. As stated above half the US population is overweight yet only about 9% are atheist so the numbers don't match. Atheism has many failings but being more prone to obesity isn't one of them and making snide attacks towards PZ Myers, for example, does not advance our cause. I don't really want this to be a debate. I will create my own essay (might take me awhile though as it is rare I get much time to write such things) and you may respond on it's talkpage when complete. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't think anywhere near 9% of Americans are atheists and use this large survey to support this matter: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf I don't have an inclination to discuss the atheists/obesity matter further with you given your previous posts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The survey you linked to says that 12% of Americans are atheists, so I don't think it exactly supports you. As it happens 12% ties in with the figure of 13% that I've seen in several other places and I have to say it seems credible. Atheism IS gaining ground in the USA, although it's nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe yet, which makes it all the more important that Conservapedia becomes a high-quality educational resource. No offence, but given the effort that's been put into pointless themes like obesity and atheism (which, even if true, proves exactly nothing about the validity of atheism) what could those man-hours have achieved if directed towards creating good, solid articles on scientific or social issues? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:04, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hi Sam, I gave up my intentions in trying to help Conservative with this. This entire article is predicated on a survey that doesn't mention either Obesity nor Atheism. Despite bringing this up numerous times Conservative has yet to address this problem and has made it abundantly clear that trying to discuss anything with him only leads to one being insulted, accusesations of not being a Christian followed by having to wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of non-sequiters. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:10, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

==My suggestions==
I think that two more points bear mentioning in the article. First, since recent studies show a correlation between rate of religious attendance and obesity, links to such studies would provide strong evidence in favor of the atheism-obesity link. Second, while the article mentions lesbianism and obesity, the male homosexual culture of personal irresponsibility would lead male homosexuals to a similar level of disregard for their physical fitness. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:39, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually in my experience male homosexuals take extreme care about their appearance, far more so than most heterosexual men do whether Christian or not. I'd say that a good 25% of the men who go to my gym are openly gay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::DavidE, we covered the recent study you referred to. See above. Second, if you want to make a claim, please advance data to support it. Don't plan on checking this talk page very often. Saw your post to recent changes though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Correction ==

Hi, this is my first edit. I am an East Asian Languages and Cultures major. I just read "[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]" and noticed a mistake. The essay has two pictures of what is supposed to be Siddhartha Guatama. The picture of the chunky fellow is actually Budai, who is, according to Buddhist lore, an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha. Maitreya and Guatama are two different deities. Guatama is always portrayed in art as either skinny or broad shouldered and muscular. The mis-identification needs to be corrected. Although a satire, the essay makes a good point, so I think even small things like captions on pictures should be accurate. --[[User:Jimmyray|Jimmyray]] 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== a reply from penn jillette ==

:I just watched [http://revision3.com/pennpoint/fat_atheists this video]. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, here is my response: [[Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette]] Here is my favorite line from the essay: "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:12, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

:You've missed equating us fat people with fluffy kitten haters though, so I guess I should be grateful. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:51, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, everyone makes mistakes in their lives. In many cases, it is the result of making bad choices. The common sense things Mr. Norris says about being overweight [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity|HERE]] are true. There is a reason why people in Asia are far thinner than Americans and many European countries. They make better choices when it comes to diet and exercise. I realize that some people have thyroid problems or other medical issues, but in most cases it comes down to diet and exercise. People in Asia eat healthier food and exercise more and I provided a responsible citation from the medical literature in this article indicating that Asians eat healthier food. In the majority of cases, being overweight is very fixable and I did provide the solutions to being overweight in the external link section of this article and I cited responsible sources such as the [[Mayo Clinic]] and WebMD.

As far as your charge that I have not equated overweight people with kitten haters, I would simply point out that you really can't show me anything in this article I wrote that is untrue/unreasonable. I guess you can claim that overweight people are largely that way because of their genes. However, I don't buy it. Here is why: http://blog.awpainrelief.com/health-issues-childhood-obesity/ Even Polynesian people who are more disposed to obesity did fine before they changed their dietary habits. Lastly, I am certainly not going to play online doctor and diagnose anyone's particular health issues so if you have health issues relating to being overweight, I will let you work out things with your physician. I really have no animosity towards you and hope the best for you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obesity article ==

1) Does the fact the talk page for the [[obesity]] article redirects here mean '''CP's official position''' is that '''all fat people are atheists'''? If not, please remove the redirect and allow comments on that page.

2) If the purpose of the obesity article is not to label '''all''' fat people as atheists, or lesbians, or liberals, please show some concern for the people struggling with this issue (obesity, not atheism, homosexuality or liberalism) by adding the different treatments available to reduce weight, including gastric bypass surgery, medication and counseling. Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Nutrisystem are just a few popular programs.

Because in reality, the majority of fat people are ''not'' evil.
Thank you, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:I find this whole thing confusing. Obesity is rampant in the United States but Conservative also likes to claim that atheists are a mere squeak of the US population. Ergo, many religious people are obese also and the fattest states are also the most religious. None of it really makes any sense to me. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, please consider learning more about the [[Generalized linear model]] and multi-variable statistical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll do that if you learn more about obesity and it's relation to atheism (hint: there is no relation). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the removal of the redirect. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==This material is offensive==
This material is offensive and does nothing to bring people in need to Christ. "''It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth"''" (Matt 15:11) and it is the ridicule coming out of the mouth of the author that defiles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:08, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I notice you didn't point out any factual errors in the article and I am not going to censor factual information for you. I see no reason to cave in to an egotistical blowhard who is merely seeking payback. I also don't believe you know your Bible well. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%204&version=NASB Amos 4:1 - Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria] Biblical commentary on Amos 4: "You cows of Bashan: Amos wasn’t trained as a prophet, he was a simple herdsman and farmer. When he wanted to get the point across to the indulgent women of Israel, he called them fat cows."[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/3004.htm] Titus 1:12: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." If you think I am going to let a egotist suck up my time for no good reason, think again. By the way, it is funny and awfully convenient that you suddenly find the material to be offensive now. Please grow up. You wonder why I don't want to communicate with you. It is undisciplined and petty outbursts like this that is one of the prime reasons. I have zero trust in your integrity. I also think you have little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes your fancy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is nonsense. What evidence is there the "the indulgent women of Israel" were Atheists? And please refrain from incivility and personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:54, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A factual error has been pointed out many times over, by me as well as others. The study does not mention atheists nor does the study mention obesity - there is no factual connection between Atheism and Obesity. That is an error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::How did I misrepresent a study. I didn't. If you are going to post on the talk page, please post something worthwhile. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Hasn't Mr. Schlafly addressed this before and said that the link between atheism and obesity should not be censored? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:10, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: Rob mentioned this material as being "offensive". What's offensive about a fact? And why say that unless you want to censor? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, this isn't rocket science. I provided commentary on the Gallup study in the article. You either need to read better, express yourself better or be more honest. I hope it's not the latter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All the study says is that more religious people choose healthier diets. There is nothing about Atheism nor Obesity in the study. You leapt to that conclusion on your own and it is factually unsupported by the study. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::RobS, grow up. I merely pointed out above that the Bible does talk about obesity/gluttony in populations. I think the more you hang out with atheist buddies and try to court them with this type of bootlicking to curry their favor, the more you are going to find facts to be offensive. I am going to have to agree with BradleyS's comment above. I also continue to believe your timing is awfully convenient in terms of your petulant complaint and this is merely a petty and spurious attempt at payback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::*''The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a [[gluttony|glutton]], and a winebibber, a friend of publicans<ref>publicans were [[collaborator]]s with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.</ref> and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.'' (Matt 11:19) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
{{reflist}}
RobS, I know you are spoiling for fight with me at this time, but I am not going to cooperate and be drawn into senseless contention. I also suggest if you truly want to make some positive changes to Conservapedia that you engage in less factious and unwarranted behavior. Based on recent communications to me, you are going to find it much more difficult to gain the cooperation of your fellow Conservapedians if you continue down your present path. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

:You know, you don't have to respond to every post you're name is mentioned. See [[Last wordism]]. Also, please do not presume to telepathically understand other's motives, or impugn other's motives with your imagination. It can be misconstrued as incivility. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::What "senseless contention" are you referring to? It's certainly not people calling to your attention the several unsupported arguments you make in these hitpieces. You've failed to carry your burden that there's even a correlation between atheism and obesity, yet you continue hectoring and sneering at these people. Why is that? That's not what I would call openmindedness or cooperation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
===factual===
:User:conservative you keep insisting that this material is factual and ignoring what everybody else is saying about it. But whether or not it's "factual" isn't the point, and it's rather disingenuous of you to keep insisting that it is.
:Do you make fun of the handicapped? Because it would be "factual," wouldn't it, to call a person with disabilities a cripple. Lots of things are factual, but here people are expressing concern over your apparent need to mock and degrade. What is it that you are trying to prove with these "facts?" You do know that there are overweight Christians and physically fit atheists, don't you? It seems to everybody that you are only pointing and saying "HaHa! You're fat."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::CamilleT, if you feel strongly about this matter, I think you should contact your elected representatives and ask them to include being overweight as a disability. Perhaps, you could get some equal access laws passed too requiring: extra wide doorways, extra wide seating in all public transit and heavy duty shock absorbers installed in all taxis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I not sure why I'm trying again, but come on, Conservative. What exactly is your goal behind these articles where you're equating fat people with atheists and gays and I can't remember what else? These article don't appear to express any true concern about overweight people and our very real issues; instead, it appears as though we're just convenient whipping boys. We're one of the few remaining subgroups in society that are considered fair game without our denigrators becoming social pariahs. Your writings reflect many of the typical attitudes people display toward fat people - we're supposed to accept any and all insults, fat jokes and negative stereotypes because I guess it's assumed we're not "real" people with "real" feelings. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::The article provides data relating to atheism and obesity and related matters. It also provides some helpful information. I don't see the point of repeating myself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are wasting your time Sharon. Conservative has shown himself to be entirely impervious to either logical argument or to any appeal to civility or empathy. He is determined to plough ahead with these disgraceful articles which bring this site into disrepute. In spite of his name he is clearly no real conservative. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:07, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Charles, as far as your empathy comment, have you read Conservapedia's article [[Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] articles? [[Atheist Population|Atheists as a population]] are not known for their empathy. Perhaps, if some atheists weren't so busy engaging in their costly habit of [[gluttony]], they would have more money to donate to others. Plus, the greater the aggregate world demand for food, the higher the price of food so [[Atheism and obesity|obese atheists]] are not making things easy for people having difficulty with rising food prices. Now I realize there are people with legitimate medical reasons for being overweight such a thyroid problems, but I have to agree with this article as a whole: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::So... because atheists are not empathetic it is ok for your not to be empathetic? Hmm. I think you had better re-examine your "conservative" values. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that your Gallup poll does not mention either atheists or obesity. On every occasion you have utterly failed to explain how your article is supported by that poll. I suggest that you consider removing your atheist/fatties "articles". Finally, I really don't care what Chuck Norris has to say on any topic outside of acting. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have mentioned many times over Conservative, '''there is no mention of atheism or obesity in the gallup study'''. It is an error you have yet to address aside from deflection. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Interesting. I had not bothered to question the actual data, rather its presentation and its implications, but with this it seems User:conservative is wrong on every single level. Go on, deflect away, conservative.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Whining, kvetching and pretending will not make the Gallup study cease to mention the very religious nor will it remove the non-Gallup data I offered. As far as the Gallup data and the non-religious and its relevance, each person has to decide for themselves how similar non-religious people are to atheists in terms of health habits unless there is data I am not aware of that compares the two. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9ZleOXzQ0 This song] reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. Walk me and everyone who thinks you're dead wrong though this. Apparently none of us is as good a reader as you are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I presented 25 written pages of data and content relating to atheism and obesity. I am very content to let readers decide its relevance. Please feel free to offer more prominent overweight atheist to be included. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study '''does not''' support the conclusion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I am thinking of adding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZDs88uWKrk&feature=relmfu HappyCabbie] as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::If someone is looking for a list of overweight atheists on the internet this article is easily found.[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+overweight+atheists&pbx=1&oq=list+of+overweight+atheists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2887l12923l0l13407l29l24l1l8l8l0l350l3232l0.11.5.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1024&bih=514][http://www.bing.com/search?q=list+of+overweight+atheists&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI][http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=list+of+overweight+atheists&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand Conservative, you have never answered the most basic of questions and I am rather bewildered. The Gallup study never mentions atheism or obesity and obesity affects nearly half of all US citizens yet you yourself state atheist are in the extreme minority (1.9% if I remember correctly). Please help me understand where you are drawing your conclusions from. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::So, all your information comes from a few online atheists? Without statistics, you have nothing. Should I add that I, who does not believe in any deities or supernatural forces, am not fat? Where does that leave your careful analysis? Or are you just cherry picking? Because I can name overweight Christians pretty easily too (off the top of my head: Bill Donahue, John Hagee and his son; Jack Chick is pretty burly looking; various self-professed Christians not involved in preaching such as Joe Barton, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the late Jerry Fallwell).--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
"Conservative", answer two simple and direct questions simply and directly. No more of your deflection. Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. I'll give you a hint, and this time I'm flat out calling you a liar if you give another ridiculous non-response: it's not in there. Your campaign to slander your opponents however childishly and dishonestly you can is casting this website in disrepute. For one of the few times in a year I did a google search for Conservapedia and specifically the rubbish you call articles. You in particular get overwhelmingly negative attention, even from Christians and conservatives. Please desist before you bring more shame to our doorstep. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Pardon the puns, but I am only interested in debating the "big cheeses" within the atheist community and not the "small fries". :) I challenged the overweight atheist [[Penn Jillette]] to debate me, but he ran away which no doubt caused him to be out of breathe. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Do you have any reports of Moses, Elijah etc NOT being overweight? As the only contemporary references we have to most of the prophets are in books the wrote themselves I don't think this is an argument I'd like to defend. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Harry, Moses delivered to the Israel the Mosaic law. I believe that eating kosher is healthy. Ultra-orthodox Jews don't seem to have a problem with excess weight.]]
{{clear}}
I just find it interesting that we would concern ourselves with the incidence of obesity in atheists, as this seems rather non-sequitor. Why not look at things that are more related to faith and morality such as crime rates (http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm) (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) or sexual morality (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) or racism and ethnocentrism (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) even intelligence would be more telling than obesity (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) [[User:CatholicBill]]

:As I understand it, the argument is that obesity is itself linked to most of these factors. For sexual morality, see [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. For intelligence, see the oft-made point that obese individuals may be ignoring scientific research into diet and exercise. For ethnocentricity, one might perhaps suggest that obese atheists are ignoring healthy ethnic foods such as brown rice and mung beans (should this be added to the article?). So you see, it's not that those issues are excluded, it's that effort is made to cover as many issues as possible, as amply as possible. The expansive obsesity writings enable anti-atheist fingers to be dipped into many pies.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::Is this a bad time to point out that dipping fingers in pies is likely to lead to obesity? :-) --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::::User: CatholicBill, the article is about atheism and obesity - not crime statistics. It is certainly no crime to overeat or be overweight. Please stick to the topic of the article. Be that as it may: [http://creation.com/atheism#incarceration HERE is some crime statistics in relation to no-religion people you are failing to bring up.] As far as your other "arguments", you are failing to recognize that we live in a multi-variable world. For example, if affluence is related to atheism because people get "fat and sassy" (rebellious) towards God when their wallet is fuller then that would certainly affect IQ levels since their is a correlation between wealth and IQ. By the way, if atheists are so smart, then why did the Soviet Union fall? :) Lastly, the atheist community could take much of the wind out of the sails of this article simply by losing weight which is easy to do if you comply with what nutritional science, exercise science and medical science say to do. Atheists purport to love science so this should be quite easy to do if their purported love of science is genuine. So instead of kvetching about this article, I suggest that the atheist community get more serious about applying the health sciences within their community. If you are an atheist, next time you feel tempted to eat a Whopper ask yourself "What would Jesus eat?" According to the [[Mayo Clinic]] the Mediterranean diet/lifestyle (which is what Jesus ate/did) is quite healthy and compatible with weight loss.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] For example, Jesus no doubt ate figs and figs are a "sweet way to lose weight" or maintain a healthy weight.[http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=24#healthbenefits] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

This page is guilty of a major logical fallacy, that is, the ad hominem abusive [http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem_abusive]. If you don't wish to follow the link and read up, it basically means that pointing out some negative aspect of a person or group that holds a particular belief does not change the truth or falsehood of that belief, as long as the negative aspect is unrelated to the issue at stake. The belief must stand or fall on its own. Even assuming EVERY atheist is obese, this has no impact on the veracity of their belief. It is pointed out that atheists are obese because they ignore nutritive science. However, nutritive science and theology are utterly separate fields - one's adherence or non adherence to nutritive science has no bearing on one's belief in the existence or non existence of God (or a god) --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 08:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::I have never seen the fallacy described as applying to a group. I think you are changing the definition of this fallacy. Second, the article doesn't claim that the existence of overweight atheists means that God exists. If it had, you would certainly have pointed that out. The issue of a segment of the atheist community ignoring nutritional science, exercise science and medical science seems to upset you. By the way, if memory serves, if you had read the talk page more carefully, I believe this issue was already covered. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I believe the amount of atheist obesity in many societies will decrease as there will be less atheists. I suggest reading: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Other countries plus America's culture which is historically more car centered ==

:Rather contrary to the rather limited 'studies' that this article bases its claims off, I think it'd be most logical to conclude that atheism is inversely proportional to obesity, when you consider the USA has one of the highest (if not the highest) obesity rates in the Western world, and also happens to be the most religious.
Where do most Christians reside in the world? The East or the West? Are people in the East thinner? Do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolate the religious variable in relation to health habits and/or obesity? More importantly, do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolates the variable of religiousness in relation to health habits and/or obesity and measures the "Very religious". The reason I ask these questions is that we know the major variables of income, education and race affect how people eat/exercise.

In addition, we know that America is the birth place of large scale automobile manufacturing ([[Henry Ford]] and Ford Motor Company) plus has had federal/state public policy pushing the interstate highways and suburbia (Also, America had white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs).[http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/roads/TRANSCRIPT.html] So it comes as no big surprise that America has a very automobile centered culture and has less of a bicycle/walking culture than many Western nations (bike lanes and bike paths, etc). Of course, this has a significant negative impact on the amount of exercise in America and adds to obesity.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816][http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf]

Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, did a significant number of the New Atheism founders (and [[PZ Myers]]} have a significant problem with being overweight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] Similarly, does/did a significant number of the board of directors of the [[American Atheists]] organization have a problem with being overweight? See: [[Atheism and obesity]] Also, does [[Penn Jillette]] have a problem with being overweight?

In short, your analysis was far too simplistic and suffered as a result. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, thanks for reminding me about this article. I just added [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8106603.stm another picture citation] to the [[Atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Addendum: I added a few pictures that further illustrate the issue of atheism and obesity and/or the problems associated with atheist obesity. For example, atheist [[PZ Myers]]' difficulty ascending and descending the dinosaur model at the [[Creation Museum]] due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#PZ_Myers.27_visit_to_the_Creation_Museum] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Form follows function ==

Or in this case - the form reflects the content: it is just messy:
*there are two sections above the TOC
*the references/notes are a mess: generally each should show which source is quoted. That's helpful for the reader when he ponders whether the link is worth following...
*having a separate section for each atheist is messy and clutters the TOC - especially as those section sometimes only state the name.
*it is a pain to read: e.g, the phrase ''in addition'' pops up a dozen times...

The whole subject is ridiculous, but User:Conservative, when you are spending so much time micro-managing it, couldn't you try to improve its outfit and readability? Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

:For those in a hurry, I have condensed some of the essential info about individuals into a [[Gallery of obese atheists|gallery page]]. They do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could a link from this page be added?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Comment for User:Conservative ==

I must commend you for all your work tying fat people to atheism/homosexuality/etc., etc. Too bad you don't spend your time trying to help both sectors (obese people and atheists) by showing compassion and God's love rather than disdain and mockery.

True witnessing for God doesn't consist of putting people down because you dislike them for either their appearance (obese people - you obviously have an issue with them) or their beliefs (atheists).

How many people do you truly think you've brought to God with your writings? As an obese Christian, I know you've offended me with your attempts to link obesity with everything you hate, and I doubt that disbelievers would feel any less offended. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:11, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Edited to add: Quite frankly, your writings make me feel toward you the same way as I have ever felt toward the bullies I've encountered in my real life. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Response of User: Conservative ===
Sharon, above are discussions about atheism and obesity.

As far as [[Homosexuality and obesity]] among other things I cited this:

"The journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:

The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the Centers for Disease Control looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and 7) weight management. (emphasis added)"[http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505]

You may disagree with me, but I think the [[Centers for Disease Control]] is a valid source to use in this instance. I am not saying the CDC is perfect, but nevertheless I don't have a problem with citing them in this instance. I also have no problem citing a conservative journalist who formerly worked for a leading newspaper and a conservative organization.

Also, today I added some health/fitness information on weight loss plus some additional information from responsible sources. I don't see why an encyclopedia should refrain from offering useful/valid information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:42, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

::I disagree with the tone of your writings, yes. Please explain to me how [http://conservapedia.com/Gallery_of_obese_atheists this] helps anyone? Does it draw people closer to God's word? Does it show God's love? Or does it show pettiness instead? It's certainly not funny, or educational, or loving in any way. But then again, I guess you don't claim to be witnessing, do you? What exactly is the purpose behind the linking of obesity to everything you hate? Are you even ''trying'' to convert anyone? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't see us agreeing on the topics of obesity and atheism/homosexuality anytime soon. But I know I did cite relevant sources such as the [[Centers for Disease Control]]/Peter LaBarbera (see above) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this Pubmed material]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I doubt that I'll ever think bullying behavior toward obese people is the correct way to act. And I notice you totally fail to answer my questions - why? You accuse people of being cowards when they fail to answer your questions. Maybe you ought to take a good, long look in the mirror. Don't flatter yourself that you win when you avoid answering. I've challenged you before about having a debate over the treatment Conservapedia deals out toward fat people. Care to take me up on it? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:09, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Other commentary ==

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:''You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list.'' No, the list doesn't imply that all Christians are obese! Do you think that there are only fat atheists?
:It seems that your belief is just one amongst a lot more influential factors when it comes to personal appearance.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:27, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|the gallery]] nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Silly! You get them in the Mellow Marshes. Obviously. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::A general message to all re: the [[Atheism and obesity]] article:

::I have not had a campaign against overweight people in general.

::I merely pointed out the obesity in the atheist, homosexual and lesbian populations in the Western World. I also pointed out that atheists pretend to love science and science gives us abundance information on how to lose weight and the negative effects of being overweight. Workout an hour or more a day (strength training and aerobic exercise) and eat a sensible diet (reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables or Mediterranean diet or Zone diet, low glycemic foods, etc.) and the vast majority of people will lose the weight and keep it off with a reasonable amount of maintenance exercise. I provided all the information on how to lose weight and keep it off via a healthy lifestyle.

::I also pointed out that in 2005, there were 4 times as many Eastern World Christians as Western World Christians (and that Eastern World people have healthier lifestyles in general) and there is a significant amount of data indicating that the very religious in America live healthier lifestyles than others in America. Plus, I gave sound research indicating that religion in the West tends to increase self-discipline (all other things remaining equal of course).

::In addition, I pointed out that there seems to be a higher incidence of obesity within the homosexual population and provided sound evidence. Most homosexuals are liberals and liberals purport to love science so I don't see why this is not fair to point out.

::I also pointed out that people cannot reasonably claim that Jesus, Moses, Peter and the Apostle Paul were overweight. For example, there are several Bible passages against gluttony and sloth. The Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony and sloth. Given that many Western atheists presently scoff at how superior their ideology is over a biblical worldview this is certainly fair to point out.

::I realize that the Western World has become prosperous and history teaches us that prosperity in a culture can lead to complacency and those cultures declining/falling. As a result, advocating self-discipline is not going to be a popular idea among many at the present time. Recently, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeeFhnlHvk a book came out] essentially saying that overweight people in general need to be more self-disciplined, personally responsible and more mentally tough and if memory serves he ignited caller complaints after his public appearances (By the way, the author is an ex overweight guy and it appears he is a libertarian atheist or at least anti-Bible).

::Lastly, as far as the [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]], atheists (and liberals) sure seem willing to dish out satire, but I have noticed that they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Could atheist pride be the issue? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:11, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I was wondering [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. You quite rightly, in my opinion, have a dislike of obese people - especially atheists. Are you willing to reveal the weight of the collective known as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]? Personally I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh (currently) 14 stone. What do you (and/or your respective contributors) weigh. If you are unwilling to reveal the number of members of your collective (a somewhat socialist concept I must say) then an average weight will do if you are willing to provide it. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 10:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
::::David, do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? You certainly have provided no proof and evidence that I/we dislike obese people - none! :) Secondly, within reason people rightly like others who stick to their guns on matters and prior to User:Conservative's material on obesity and the atheism/homosexuality, User: Conservative did say that no identifying information would be give on us/me. :) Of course, it goes without saying that this policy will continue. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Maybe not "dislike", as "determined to constantly and consistently portray in as negative a manner as possible" with as many links to things you ''do'' dislike. I personally don't see much difference. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

===Biblical position===
Is the Bible really so strongly against overeating, as [[user:Conservative]] says?

Jesus only discusses the topic once, in Matthew Chapter 11 (and also as recounted in Luke), where he addresses accusations, presumably made by those killjoy Pharisees, that ''he himself'' was a glutton. He doesn't seem remotely troubled by the accusations, does not bother to deny or refute them, and seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether one chooses to be abstemious (like John the Baptist) or indulgent (like the Son of Man).

So I don't think [[user:Conservative]]'s claim that "[t]he Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony" really gives the whole story. And I would rather agree with Jesus than with the Pharisees, who presumably also thought there was a biblical basis for their own misguided finger-wagging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:02, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, as you are probably aware, the Apostle Paul declared: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16). Accordingly, when it comes to the issues of gluttony and sloth, these portions of the Bible also need to be taken into account: Old Testament (such as Proverbs), the words of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter and any other Bible verses on this matter. Christians should not inadvertently or intentionally employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]] when informing themselves on these issues. Here are some verses in the Bible on gluttony: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony Biblical teaching on gluttony]. Biblical teaching on laziness/sloth: http://codybateman.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/laziness-introduction-and-bible-study-guide/

:::In addition, it would be unwise for Christians to ignore what medical science and other disciplines of science indicate on these matters. (see: [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity]]). Besides the obvious benefit of feeling better and having more energy and thus getting more done through avoiding the besetting sins of gluttony and sloth (Paul did command Christians to be good stewards and to make the most of their time), preventative medicine is often better than treating illness after the fact.

:::I realize that working out and eating right are not always fun and require self-discipline. But like most things in life, in most cases, it merely requires replacing bad habits with good habits. The reason why many diets fail is that people never establish a healthy lifestyle via establishing good habits. In addition, people can do things to make exercise more fun or productive (music, audio books, etc.).
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

:::Next, I do think that Christians need to be informed about church history plus not have a myopic view of the world. In many cases, it could be argued that at the present time the Western World church is behaving like the undisciplined Church at Corinth which the Apostle Paul had to correct.[http://www.churchleaders.com/?news=139580/] Let's not forget, there are plenty of Christians in the world who are living healthy lifestyles and avoiding the sins of gluttony and sloth. See: [[Global Christianity]]

:::Lastly, there are certainly self-disciplined Christians in the West and no doubt some of them were a part of the Gallup survey and other social science data (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, in the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I see you are siding with the Pharisees, then.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here are the questions that I think you need to consider. They are in two groups, one focusing on Jesus' position, and one on that of the Pharisees:
::::'''JESUS:''' Do you agree that Jesus seems to say that gluttony isn't really a big deal in Matthew 11? You seem to think that it is a big deal - are you therefore saying that Jesus was wrong? Or is it more important now than it was - if Jesus was on earth nowadays and was accused of being a glutton, do you think he would deny the accusation more vigorously? Or would Jesus, if on earth today, follow a strict diet so that the accusation would not be made? Why did he not do so in the first century?

::::'''PHARISEES:''' One way the Pharisees attacked Jesus was by calling him a glutton. Do you think they were right or justified to do so? How do your accusations of gluttony, used to attack atheists and homosexuals, differ from the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, if at all? What do you think was the Pharisees' basis for being against gluttony? Would it have been scriptural? Would it have been justified? How would it have differed, if at all, from your own scriptural basis? Is it possible that you have followed the same process as the Pharisees in arriving at your own views about gluttony?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

==Article Structure==
This article seems a bit overly complex in its structure. When there are 54 sections in the contents bar, it seems to me that some of these could be merged or deleted without changing the overall flow of the article too much. I don't intend to make any particular changes, because certain admins seem to have a lot of effort invested in this article, and I'd rather not irritate people higher up the food chain than me, but that's my opinion at this point.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:Addendum: If the particular example subsections could be organized in some way (possibly alphabetical by last name), I feel that that might help with the readability of the article to some extent.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Hand and cookies.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Obesity is positively associated with [[neuroticism]], impulsiveness, and lower [[self-control|self-discipline]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/waytoocrowded/1899823572/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
:::When deciding the order of the pictures, I LARGELY used a combination of chronological order, the prominence of the atheist and their atheism and obesity "weight class". Should some of these atheists follow the recommendations of [[medical science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]], I may move them lower down the in article.

:::There are a number of topics within and related to the atheism and obesity such as irreligion and irrationality (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]). Some of the causes of obesity are neuroticism, impulsiveness, anger and lower self-discipline issues (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). Of course, these causes of obesity are also related to irrationality and God-hating. See also: [[Causes of atheism]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
== Unlock this page please ==
I have material to add--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 01:20, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
:Please clarify. And if it is a study, have the study have a large data set, be well-designed and control for important variables such as socioeconomic factors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:56, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
::Do I have to justify my postings to you? Surely the very concept of a wiki is to combine resources. I wanted to add some obese atheists but if you do not want help forget it.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:08, 6 April 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2014-04-06T05:20:57Z

JerryCa:

==Opinion from a Christian==
After skimming through these discussions, I can't believe the arguments going on and which are not going on. I enjoy conservapedia, and always check for an
article here first, and go to Wikipedia if I cannot find it here. I was telling my friend at work (She's a Christian female also) two days ago about this site as a great
Wikipedia alternative in response to a question she had, and was rudely interrupted by another of our coworkers (this ones NOT a Christian, he's a liberal smart
aleck immature boy in his 20s) who shouted "Conservapedia? HAH have you seen their page calling non-christians fat? Not sure if that's going to pass as a
Scholarly source" or something similar to that. He then pulled up this page and started reading it out loud. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. Fat jokes?
I skimmed and found the main argument on this page concerning studies and whether it's true or not, but do I really have to explain this?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because considering the number of people in both groups (millions of Christians! Even atheists I'm sure are 100,000 in the
US. There are going to be a whole lot of obese Christians, thin Christians, obese atheists, and thin atheists. The immature kid at my work is thinner than I am,
which is natural considering the sample sizes involved. Even if it's true, that means that in real life situations the reverse will happen (the atheist coworker would be
fatter than me) slightly more often. Well in case the person or persons who made this page are so out of touch from Christians in the real world, it makes us seem
petty and childish calling the fat guy fat! And in the 40% or whatever times that the Christian is fatter than the atheist (my situation at work), it makes us seem
petty, childish, and just wrong because the fat girl is calling the skinny guy fat ! What purpose is this page supposed to serve other than being embarrassing?

I'll spell this out even simpler: two situations. Situation 1: Fat atheist, the article seems true, and the fat atheist gets sympathy bc Christians are making fun of his
weight. Situation 2: Skinny atheist, and Christians putting forth this site as a better alternative to Wikipedia looks delusional.

Until this filth is removed i will most certainly not be putting my personal recommendation (and by extension, reputation) to this site. So angry, it feels like my son
back in middle school when I'd get calls from his teacher and I'd have to apologize for his behaving like 2 year old in class. NOT Christian-like and NOT helpful -Patty

Those are some very interesting poll findings! I have not seen those reported or discussed ANYWHERE in the media, thanks for getting them out there. Hopefully many people will now realize the dangers of choosing an atheistic lifestyle. PS I really enjoy the satires based on these findings. There very funny but also deliver a very serious message.

What's with this article? I'm an atheist, I'm 5' 9", 160 pounds, I bike to school almost every day, I eat healthy food, I hike, I work out from time to time and I know at least a couple of other atheist (I don't know many people all together) who have similar life styles. What gives? [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. '''Thousands''' identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW
I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:11, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::You are '''proposing''' a major change to this article and challenging basic scientific findings. Where are your sources?--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 11:05, 2 January 2011 (EST)
:::::I would also like to point out that I live in a predominately atheist area and very few people I know are overweight. I don't doubt that atheism is a worse lifestyle choice - I just don't see that it has any correlation to obesity. Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem attacks on a few overweight famous atheists is going to convince anyone, and it also seems horribly unprofessional. [[User:RkWilko|RkWilko]] 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::::There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::RkWilko, Gallup's study takes into account geographic to create a more [[ceteris paribus]] study in terms of what they studied. Do you have a ceteris paribus like study concerning atheism and obesity? Also, did you see the pictures of the [[American Atheists]] board of directors? What are your thoughts about how fat or thin they are generally speaking? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:15, 8 January 2011 (EST)

This section: "While all atheists are non-religious..." is provided without citation. It's pretty obvious why it has no citation. It's false. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists and Humanists, for example.

Furthermore, providing a few examples of overweight atheists does nothing to prove the article's truth. That's just bad inductive reasoning. If I were to show a few skinny Hindus, would that prove that most Hindus are thin? Of course not.

Given Conservapedia's dedication to providing information that is as accurate as possible, I'm sure that someone in control of this article will make the necessary corrections. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Tylero|Tylero]] 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)
::::Fixed. I wrote: While many [[Western World|Western]] atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. I did this to avoid the contentious debate on whether Western atheism is a religion. I believe it can be easily argued that Western atheism is a religion and that is probably going to be incorporated in the atheism article at a future date. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 7 January 2011 (EST)

== The elephant in the room ==

Until the atheist community practices more of what [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] recommends to do in order to have a healthy lifestyle, the issue of [[atheism and obesity]] will continue to be the elephant in the room. [[Shockofgod]] is entirely correct - [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|atheism is madness]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)

:You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much for being brave enough to publish the link between atheism and obesity - I've not seen it mentioned in the lamestream media or on liberal sites. In fact I tried to add such to the article but was reverted for not having a cite for it, do you have a good cite that shows a lack of MSM coverage of the link between atheism and obesity please? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:27, 11 January 2011 (EST)
::::The MSM is losing market share as a whole and the internet is taking away their market share. Feel free to spread the word about atheism and obesity far and wide and with great alacrity across the internet and in your community as I think the slow moving overweight and obese atheist community will not be able to effectively compete with you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Wow! ==

I just read through nearly half of this article and fact-checked every claim it made, and there wasn't so much as one single error. To whoever the authors are, this is quite the article!--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 18:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery ==

Picture of overweight Daniel Dennett: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

== Stephen Fry ==
Hey, reading through this article I see many people have been mentioned, but I feel it is a bit unfair to mention Stephen Fry. To his credit he has lost a lot of weight recently, as illustrated here: [http://www.globalgranary.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172&d=1296818872] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
: As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1217335/Has-Stephen-Fry-gone-far-Actor-shows-amazing-stone-weight-loss.html] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 18:07, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks. I just added this to the article: "In 2009, the Mail Online reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again". However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== video of Michael Nugent ==

The overweight atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is. Accordingly, I used slimmer looking video of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent that does not make him look more overweight than he actually is.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern University study ==

Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and obesity]] article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like [[atheism and obesity|some of the modern apostles of atheism]] such as [[PZ Myers]]. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist [http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/01/blag-hag-those-fatty-mcfat-fat-atheists.html "blag hag"], I would remind you that [[atheism and obesity|most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin]] plus the Gallup study used [[generalized linear model]] analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing [[atheism and obesity|the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth]] if you were an [[PZ Myers|overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight]], but please do not do it here. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm style over substance fallacy] to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Atheism is madness!]] Evolutionism [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution.2C_Liberalism.2C_Atheism.2C_and_Irrationality is madness as well]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if Conservapedia mentions various facts about atheism and matters relating to atheism, however. The Conservapedia atheism article certainly does not say the atheist community has some problems with obesity, therefore atheism is not valid. I would suggest reading the atheism article a few more times if you have reading comprehension difficulties. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:46, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire|some humor associated with atheism and obesity]], the existence of various atheists ignoring [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] and engaging in [[gluttony]] does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true]]. Christendom has certainly provided [[Christian apologetics|a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity]] despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Your form? Come off it. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::DGibbs, For a person who supposedly has no personal interest in atheism, you sure do sound very much like an atheist. I am certainly not convinced of your sincerity at this point.
Conservative, I have read your article [[Atheism and obesity]] as well as the [http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx Gallup study] which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.

The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at [http://www.well-beingindex.com/methodology.asp Gallup's methodology] you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.

Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been ''more'' healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.

You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: ''The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.'' It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see any valid objections to [[atheism and obesity|the atheism and obesity entry]] in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.

:As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on ''which'' brand of cigarette someone smokes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] and not address [[Atheism and obesity|the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided]]. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm slothful induction] fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, [[Atheist Population|there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians.]] :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" ([http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4004069_f520.jpg some of whom are obese] and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics?

I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! [[User:MichaelOL|MichaelOL]] 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145 Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:If anyone wants to contact this science editor http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern U study new data ==

Here is what I read before:

"But researchers have also found signs that people who attend services put on more weight. In the new study, which will be released Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in Atlanta, researchers sought to follow people over time to see what happened to them. They examined a previous long-term study that tracked 2,433 people who were aged 20 to 32 in the mid-1980s.

'''Most of the participants were women, and 41 percent were black.'''

After adjusting their statistics to take into account factors such as race, the researchers found that 32 percent of those who attended services the most became obese by middle age, Feinstein said.

Whatever the case, he said, the study points to the role that '''places of worship could play in reducing obesity.'''

"They can become part of the solution," explained Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago, perhaps by increasing awareness of obesity and holding health fairs.

'''"Pastors, especially those in poor neighborhoods, could champion programs for more fresh produce and less fast food in their neighborhoods," Sulmasy added.'''[http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145]

'''<big>It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:</big>'''

The study tracked 2,433 young men and women for 18 years in '''Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Ala., and Oakland, Calif.'''

In the study, “frequent” religious participation meant attending at least one event per week. Most, but not all of the participants, were Christians — reflecting the dominant religion in the United States, Feinstein said.

'''Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn,''' said he’s not entirely surprised by the study’s results. Parker suspects there may be a historical connection between over-eating and going to church. In years gone by, so many things were taboo — but not eating, Parker said.

Years ago, “church services ran long,” Parker said. “So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.”

'''Parker said Apostolic has made a point in recent years of serving healthy food at church events. So you’re more likely to see baked fish or chicken, rather than pizza, on the menu'''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html] - cited from Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2011

Of course, what I wrote above still applies:

Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Additional content==
While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:As the East gains more access to process food via global markets and gains in prosperity, obesity is spreading to the East as can be seen in this report on India.[http://hindu.com./2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: [[Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers|Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Relation to obesity ==

Can we get a study that directly relates to obesity? These seem to be generalized studies about health practices without any physical data. A proper study should confirm the results, but it would be better to use an obesity-specific study or at least one with obesity-specific conclusions than to use this one and make assumptions about obesity.

I'm also not that comfortable with these more questionable anti-atheism arguments because they trivialize the importance of religion. It's trivial whether you look good or lose a few inches off your belly, it's much more important how you define yourself as a member of this world and the next. I know lots of slightly pudgy Christians (while I'm not obese, I could lose a few pounds) who are nonetheless more spiritually healthy than all the skinny atheists out there.

Make fun of me all you want, but I would like to see less of this kind of article and more on the matters of substance.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article offers a lot of data and studies plus over 130 footnotes with relevant information. Some individuals, such as PZ Myers, don't appreciate being a data point and poster boy. :) Second, faith without works is dead and the Bible says by your fruits you shall know them. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit empowers people to have more self-discipline and that gluttony is a sin. The Gallup study and the world wide population of Christendom is very favorable to Christianity as far as health practices/slimness especially when you compare it to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#American_Atheists_organization American Atheists board of directors] and [[New Atheism leadership and problems with being overweight|the make up of the New Atheism leadership]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::But let's be realistic. This is just anecdotal evidence (obese individuals out of millions nationwide) and one study that, while large in sample size, isn't about obesity. The reason obesity is chosen is because it's a) funny and b) reverses a stigma that liberals like to attach to conservatives. I get it. But the case is weak. It's quality of evidence, not quantity. This is the kind of thinking I see in the most foolish of liberal college students and is too childish for us to engage in. We are better than that. We should strive to be.
:::::To say that all overweight people are gluttons (or sloths) is a generalization. Some hard-working Christians eat just to relieve hunger, but find our bodies change as we grow older and do less work on our feet. Do you not see any hefty people with your church, or among your neighbors? When I do, I do not assume they are bad Christians. And I do not assume that atheists are flawed in any way besides their lack of faith and morals. The Bible has a lot to say about talebearing too.
::::Back to the topic at hand - if the hard evidence is there, let us find it. This Gallup study is not about obesity and the anecdotal evidence is meaningless (just as libs try to use anecdotal evidence to attack Christians and Republicans).
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article merely gives evidence relating to atheism and obesity/being overweight. Although some atheists on the internet have tried to deny that I cited instances of overweight and/or obese atheists, such denialism was unwarranted. The article does not say the extent of the problem of obesity within the atheist community. It also gives data relating to the very religious and health practices, obesity, health practices of various populations, and related matters (Mayo Clinic data). The reason why the article gets under some atheists' skin (particularly those whose skin are on the thicker side), is that atheism is all about denialism (such as denying the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for Christianity]], [[atheism and mass murder]], etc.). The evidence I did present was accurate and had some relevancy. People can make their own conclusions based on the accurate and relevant data I presented concerning the extent of the obesity problem within the atheist community. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, Jesus said, "Be ye perfect...". Unlike [[PZ Myers]], Jesus was perfect and had no problems with being overweight. Jesus was a carpenter. Perhaps, PZ Myers should consider getting into carpentry and spend less time pursuing sedentary activities such a blogging about atheist nonsense. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obese atheists wax museum ==

::::I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

What would the entrance fee be? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Pretty steep to cover the amount of wax that would have to be used. For example, if I had an "Overweight and obese atheists wax museum", take a look at the amount of wax that would have to be used [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== My intentions. ==

This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you ''as a person'', conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we '''know''' are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people ''indescriminate'' of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this picture] a picture of someone slightly overweight? Next, how do you know that different worldviews affect rates of obesity equally? For example, the very religious, the moderately religious, the irreligious and atheists? Next, I realize that certainly people may crave intellectual victories because they: always lose in chess/Go/Othello/Risk/Monopoly; always lose their debates with spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and in-laws; always come up on the short end of the stick in negotiations; are in intellectually unfulfilling occupations; have trouble figuring out how their computers and remote controls work; can't figure out how to get their dog to listen to them, etc. Yet, I am very content creating descriptive article content. Now it is true that I have posted some material on non-article pages such as my User page/talk pages/satire/essay pages, etc. which alluded to/mentioned victory/defeat in a good-natured/humorous manner (exultant matador, wildfires, etc.) which some people enjoyed. Yet, after all is said an done, in articles I present meaningful information concerning a matter and endeavor to do so in a relevant manner. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
::I am not sure how to respond as you veer pretty far off topic. The Gallup survey cited does not mention atheism and there is no correlation as far as I can see. As stated above half the US population is overweight yet only about 9% are atheist so the numbers don't match. Atheism has many failings but being more prone to obesity isn't one of them and making snide attacks towards PZ Myers, for example, does not advance our cause. I don't really want this to be a debate. I will create my own essay (might take me awhile though as it is rare I get much time to write such things) and you may respond on it's talkpage when complete. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't think anywhere near 9% of Americans are atheists and use this large survey to support this matter: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf I don't have an inclination to discuss the atheists/obesity matter further with you given your previous posts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The survey you linked to says that 12% of Americans are atheists, so I don't think it exactly supports you. As it happens 12% ties in with the figure of 13% that I've seen in several other places and I have to say it seems credible. Atheism IS gaining ground in the USA, although it's nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe yet, which makes it all the more important that Conservapedia becomes a high-quality educational resource. No offence, but given the effort that's been put into pointless themes like obesity and atheism (which, even if true, proves exactly nothing about the validity of atheism) what could those man-hours have achieved if directed towards creating good, solid articles on scientific or social issues? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:04, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hi Sam, I gave up my intentions in trying to help Conservative with this. This entire article is predicated on a survey that doesn't mention either Obesity nor Atheism. Despite bringing this up numerous times Conservative has yet to address this problem and has made it abundantly clear that trying to discuss anything with him only leads to one being insulted, accusesations of not being a Christian followed by having to wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of non-sequiters. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:10, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

==My suggestions==
I think that two more points bear mentioning in the article. First, since recent studies show a correlation between rate of religious attendance and obesity, links to such studies would provide strong evidence in favor of the atheism-obesity link. Second, while the article mentions lesbianism and obesity, the male homosexual culture of personal irresponsibility would lead male homosexuals to a similar level of disregard for their physical fitness. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:39, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually in my experience male homosexuals take extreme care about their appearance, far more so than most heterosexual men do whether Christian or not. I'd say that a good 25% of the men who go to my gym are openly gay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::DavidE, we covered the recent study you referred to. See above. Second, if you want to make a claim, please advance data to support it. Don't plan on checking this talk page very often. Saw your post to recent changes though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Correction ==

Hi, this is my first edit. I am an East Asian Languages and Cultures major. I just read "[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]" and noticed a mistake. The essay has two pictures of what is supposed to be Siddhartha Guatama. The picture of the chunky fellow is actually Budai, who is, according to Buddhist lore, an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha. Maitreya and Guatama are two different deities. Guatama is always portrayed in art as either skinny or broad shouldered and muscular. The mis-identification needs to be corrected. Although a satire, the essay makes a good point, so I think even small things like captions on pictures should be accurate. --[[User:Jimmyray|Jimmyray]] 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== a reply from penn jillette ==

:I just watched [http://revision3.com/pennpoint/fat_atheists this video]. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, here is my response: [[Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette]] Here is my favorite line from the essay: "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:12, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

:You've missed equating us fat people with fluffy kitten haters though, so I guess I should be grateful. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:51, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, everyone makes mistakes in their lives. In many cases, it is the result of making bad choices. The common sense things Mr. Norris says about being overweight [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity|HERE]] are true. There is a reason why people in Asia are far thinner than Americans and many European countries. They make better choices when it comes to diet and exercise. I realize that some people have thyroid problems or other medical issues, but in most cases it comes down to diet and exercise. People in Asia eat healthier food and exercise more and I provided a responsible citation from the medical literature in this article indicating that Asians eat healthier food. In the majority of cases, being overweight is very fixable and I did provide the solutions to being overweight in the external link section of this article and I cited responsible sources such as the [[Mayo Clinic]] and WebMD.

As far as your charge that I have not equated overweight people with kitten haters, I would simply point out that you really can't show me anything in this article I wrote that is untrue/unreasonable. I guess you can claim that overweight people are largely that way because of their genes. However, I don't buy it. Here is why: http://blog.awpainrelief.com/health-issues-childhood-obesity/ Even Polynesian people who are more disposed to obesity did fine before they changed their dietary habits. Lastly, I am certainly not going to play online doctor and diagnose anyone's particular health issues so if you have health issues relating to being overweight, I will let you work out things with your physician. I really have no animosity towards you and hope the best for you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obesity article ==

1) Does the fact the talk page for the [[obesity]] article redirects here mean '''CP's official position''' is that '''all fat people are atheists'''? If not, please remove the redirect and allow comments on that page.

2) If the purpose of the obesity article is not to label '''all''' fat people as atheists, or lesbians, or liberals, please show some concern for the people struggling with this issue (obesity, not atheism, homosexuality or liberalism) by adding the different treatments available to reduce weight, including gastric bypass surgery, medication and counseling. Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Nutrisystem are just a few popular programs.

Because in reality, the majority of fat people are ''not'' evil.
Thank you, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:I find this whole thing confusing. Obesity is rampant in the United States but Conservative also likes to claim that atheists are a mere squeak of the US population. Ergo, many religious people are obese also and the fattest states are also the most religious. None of it really makes any sense to me. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, please consider learning more about the [[Generalized linear model]] and multi-variable statistical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll do that if you learn more about obesity and it's relation to atheism (hint: there is no relation). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the removal of the redirect. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, thank you. This article pains me, as an overweight, hard-working Christian. Attacking people for their appearance and body type is to me a lot more of an atheistic, MTV generation behavior. I'm very disturbed to see such superficial bullying (using much less solid evidence) coming from our camp. Judge people by their works and their words and not by their bodies.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 16:06, 14 December 2011 (EST)

==This material is offensive==
This material is offensive and does nothing to bring people in need to Christ. "''It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth"''" (Matt 15:11) and it is the ridicule coming out of the mouth of the author that defiles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:08, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I notice you didn't point out any factual errors in the article and I am not going to censor factual information for you. I see no reason to cave in to an egotistical blowhard who is merely seeking payback. I also don't believe you know your Bible well. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%204&version=NASB Amos 4:1 - Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria] Biblical commentary on Amos 4: "You cows of Bashan: Amos wasn’t trained as a prophet, he was a simple herdsman and farmer. When he wanted to get the point across to the indulgent women of Israel, he called them fat cows."[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/3004.htm] Titus 1:12: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." If you think I am going to let a egotist suck up my time for no good reason, think again. By the way, it is funny and awfully convenient that you suddenly find the material to be offensive now. Please grow up. You wonder why I don't want to communicate with you. It is undisciplined and petty outbursts like this that is one of the prime reasons. I have zero trust in your integrity. I also think you have little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes your fancy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is nonsense. What evidence is there the "the indulgent women of Israel" were Atheists? And please refrain from incivility and personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:54, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A factual error has been pointed out many times over, by me as well as others. The study does not mention atheists nor does the study mention obesity - there is no factual connection between Atheism and Obesity. That is an error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::How did I misrepresent a study. I didn't. If you are going to post on the talk page, please post something worthwhile. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Hasn't Mr. Schlafly addressed this before and said that the link between atheism and obesity should not be censored? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:10, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: Rob mentioned this material as being "offensive". What's offensive about a fact? And why say that unless you want to censor? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, this isn't rocket science. I provided commentary on the Gallup study in the article. You either need to read better, express yourself better or be more honest. I hope it's not the latter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All the study says is that more religious people choose healthier diets. There is nothing about Atheism nor Obesity in the study. You leapt to that conclusion on your own and it is factually unsupported by the study. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::RobS, grow up. I merely pointed out above that the Bible does talk about obesity/gluttony in populations. I think the more you hang out with atheist buddies and try to court them with this type of bootlicking to curry their favor, the more you are going to find facts to be offensive. I am going to have to agree with BradleyS's comment above. I also continue to believe your timing is awfully convenient in terms of your petulant complaint and this is merely a petty and spurious attempt at payback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::*''The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a [[gluttony|glutton]], and a winebibber, a friend of publicans<ref>publicans were [[collaborator]]s with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.</ref> and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.'' (Matt 11:19) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
{{reflist}}
RobS, I know you are spoiling for fight with me at this time, but I am not going to cooperate and be drawn into senseless contention. I also suggest if you truly want to make some positive changes to Conservapedia that you engage in less factious and unwarranted behavior. Based on recent communications to me, you are going to find it much more difficult to gain the cooperation of your fellow Conservapedians if you continue down your present path. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

:You know, you don't have to respond to every post you're name is mentioned. See [[Last wordism]]. Also, please do not presume to telepathically understand other's motives, or impugn other's motives with your imagination. It can be misconstrued as incivility. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::What "senseless contention" are you referring to? It's certainly not people calling to your attention the several unsupported arguments you make in these hitpieces. You've failed to carry your burden that there's even a correlation between atheism and obesity, yet you continue hectoring and sneering at these people. Why is that? That's not what I would call openmindedness or cooperation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
===factual===
:User:conservative you keep insisting that this material is factual and ignoring what everybody else is saying about it. But whether or not it's "factual" isn't the point, and it's rather disingenuous of you to keep insisting that it is.
:Do you make fun of the handicapped? Because it would be "factual," wouldn't it, to call a person with disabilities a cripple. Lots of things are factual, but here people are expressing concern over your apparent need to mock and degrade. What is it that you are trying to prove with these "facts?" You do know that there are overweight Christians and physically fit atheists, don't you? It seems to everybody that you are only pointing and saying "HaHa! You're fat."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::CamilleT, if you feel strongly about this matter, I think you should contact your elected representatives and ask them to include being overweight as a disability. Perhaps, you could get some equal access laws passed too requiring: extra wide doorways, extra wide seating in all public transit and heavy duty shock absorbers installed in all taxis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I not sure why I'm trying again, but come on, Conservative. What exactly is your goal behind these articles where you're equating fat people with atheists and gays and I can't remember what else? These article don't appear to express any true concern about overweight people and our very real issues; instead, it appears as though we're just convenient whipping boys. We're one of the few remaining subgroups in society that are considered fair game without our denigrators becoming social pariahs. Your writings reflect many of the typical attitudes people display toward fat people - we're supposed to accept any and all insults, fat jokes and negative stereotypes because I guess it's assumed we're not "real" people with "real" feelings. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::The article provides data relating to atheism and obesity and related matters. It also provides some helpful information. I don't see the point of repeating myself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are wasting your time Sharon. Conservative has shown himself to be entirely impervious to either logical argument or to any appeal to civility or empathy. He is determined to plough ahead with these disgraceful articles which bring this site into disrepute. In spite of his name he is clearly no real conservative. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:07, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Charles, as far as your empathy comment, have you read Conservapedia's article [[Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] articles? [[Atheist Population|Atheists as a population]] are not known for their empathy. Perhaps, if some atheists weren't so busy engaging in their costly habit of [[gluttony]], they would have more money to donate to others. Plus, the greater the aggregate world demand for food, the higher the price of food so [[Atheism and obesity|obese atheists]] are not making things easy for people having difficulty with rising food prices. Now I realize there are people with legitimate medical reasons for being overweight such a thyroid problems, but I have to agree with this article as a whole: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::So... because atheists are not empathetic it is ok for your not to be empathetic? Hmm. I think you had better re-examine your "conservative" values. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that your Gallup poll does not mention either atheists or obesity. On every occasion you have utterly failed to explain how your article is supported by that poll. I suggest that you consider removing your atheist/fatties "articles". Finally, I really don't care what Chuck Norris has to say on any topic outside of acting. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have mentioned many times over Conservative, '''there is no mention of atheism or obesity in the gallup study'''. It is an error you have yet to address aside from deflection. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Interesting. I had not bothered to question the actual data, rather its presentation and its implications, but with this it seems User:conservative is wrong on every single level. Go on, deflect away, conservative.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Whining, kvetching and pretending will not make the Gallup study cease to mention the very religious nor will it remove the non-Gallup data I offered. As far as the Gallup data and the non-religious and its relevance, each person has to decide for themselves how similar non-religious people are to atheists in terms of health habits unless there is data I am not aware of that compares the two. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9ZleOXzQ0 This song] reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. Walk me and everyone who thinks you're dead wrong though this. Apparently none of us is as good a reader as you are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I presented 25 written pages of data and content relating to atheism and obesity. I am very content to let readers decide its relevance. Please feel free to offer more prominent overweight atheist to be included. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study '''does not''' support the conclusion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I am thinking of adding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZDs88uWKrk&feature=relmfu HappyCabbie] as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::If someone is looking for a list of overweight atheists on the internet this article is easily found.[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+overweight+atheists&pbx=1&oq=list+of+overweight+atheists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2887l12923l0l13407l29l24l1l8l8l0l350l3232l0.11.5.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1024&bih=514][http://www.bing.com/search?q=list+of+overweight+atheists&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI][http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=list+of+overweight+atheists&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand Conservative, you have never answered the most basic of questions and I am rather bewildered. The Gallup study never mentions atheism or obesity and obesity affects nearly half of all US citizens yet you yourself state atheist are in the extreme minority (1.9% if I remember correctly). Please help me understand where you are drawing your conclusions from. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::So, all your information comes from a few online atheists? Without statistics, you have nothing. Should I add that I, who does not believe in any deities or supernatural forces, am not fat? Where does that leave your careful analysis? Or are you just cherry picking? Because I can name overweight Christians pretty easily too (off the top of my head: Bill Donahue, John Hagee and his son; Jack Chick is pretty burly looking; various self-professed Christians not involved in preaching such as Joe Barton, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the late Jerry Fallwell).--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
"Conservative", answer two simple and direct questions simply and directly. No more of your deflection. Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. I'll give you a hint, and this time I'm flat out calling you a liar if you give another ridiculous non-response: it's not in there. Your campaign to slander your opponents however childishly and dishonestly you can is casting this website in disrepute. For one of the few times in a year I did a google search for Conservapedia and specifically the rubbish you call articles. You in particular get overwhelmingly negative attention, even from Christians and conservatives. Please desist before you bring more shame to our doorstep. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::User:Conservative is right. To maximise viewers, you should either use search-friendly titles such as the ones he suggests, or else create links to your articles from others that will get a lot of search hits (I assume [[Atheism and obesity]] is in this category).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the concern about the popularity of my proposed articles, but popularity has never been a driving force in my life.

I was going to write these articles; in fact, the one about 'Christians and weight issues' was completed on my hard-drive within hours of posting my last comment on this talk page, complete with a list of prominent/notable Christians who are overweight/obese. I was (and still am) disgusted and angry about the obesity articles that are here on CP, and CP's policy that it is an acceptable conservative/Christian practice to attack someone's appearance when the real issue is a difference in ideology. After stepping away from this issue for several days to cool down, I realized my proposed articles were exactly the same as CP's articles on obesity, and I won't lower myself to that level.

Over the years, I've dealt with mean-spirited, thoughtless, childish, inconsiderate behavior from people due to weight issues. Sometimes it is unintentional; other times, such as in these articles, it is a deliberate action.

You claim these articles are a "public service" to share information on the dangers of obesity. I say hooey to that. If that were truly the case, there would be the single, main article about [[obesity]] on CP, complete with the important information about the associated health risks, and all of these articles attempting to link obesity with atheism/evolution/homosexuality/lesbianism/feminism, etc. wouldn't exist.

I would have a lot more respect if you just came out and '''admitted''' you are using "obese" as an insult directed toward people you don't like. You know it's true, and so do I. If it wasn't deliberate, you would be willing to talk with me about the situation, as I proposed earlier, and there would be more acknowledgement in CP's articles that obesity is an issue that isn't restricted to those people with whom you disagree, but also with religious people, straight people, creationists, etc. Also, there wouldn't be "fat jokes" like 'how much wax would be needed to create an obese atheist museum' showing up on the talk pages. (By the way – ha, ha. Heaven knows I've never heard a variation of ''that'' joke before.)

Do I expect the situation to change? No. Obesity is a too-easily-applied ''ad hominem'', and it appears there is much enjoyment here on CP in using it. But you should '''''strongly''''' consider arguing the ''issues'' (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc. and so forth) instead of taking the easy way out and attacking the person. It's the grown-up thing to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:28, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:Yes of course, because Italian cuisine - with its prosciutto, cotoletta, Tyrolische Speck, parma ham, cotechini, salami and wide range of meat dishes in a cream or cheese sauce is JUST LIKE the kosher diet of a 1st Century Judean. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:12, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for correcting it! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am certainly a fool, and I'm still growing accustomed to Mediawiki's syntax. When I saw the difference link in my watchlist, I saw that the comment was outside the <nowiki>''</nowiki>, and I mistook those for quotes. Thus, my previous comment is irrelevant. Thanks! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reasonable debate offer ==

I wanted remove my offer from the cowardice talkpage because it is getting off-topic and people don't seem very genuine over there. Conservative has been talking a lot about how people (atheists I believe) won't debate him and are too scared to debate in general - I think that's what he is saying anyway, he can be a bit...confusing at times. I am not an atheist nor do I really know anything about science so having a debate about the existence of God or evolution is pointless. But I am willing to debate him on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. We can have a written debate right here on Conservapedia at an agreed upon time. If/When Conservative accepts this we can work out any further rules if required. If Conservative can let me know and if he declines I'd like a reason why that doesn't consist of a non-sequitar. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hello? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I still think you are an atheist and evolutionist and you know [[Talk:Cowardice|my policy about debating obscure atheist rather than non-obscure atheist.]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I am '''not''' an atheist and your continued denial of my faith is extremely offensive. I have given you no reason to think I am so please desist in your remarks. My debate offer is very reasonable. Why will you not accept it? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, I respect your good faith attempts to engage User:Conservative in debate, but it should be more than obvious to you, and everyone else, that User:Conservative does not intend to enter into a formal debate with anyone on any subject. As should be obvious from his articles and correspondences, User:Conservative does not appear interested in enlightening his audience or winning support for his worldview. No, quite clearly, his end goal is to ridicule and frustrate his ideological and philosophical enemies. He achieves this by continually bragging about his undefeated debating track record, yet never provides any proof or evidence his memory on this matter is accurate and correct. He issues challenges to those he knows will never accept his offer. Yet in turn sets up prerequisites that are impossible to satisfy for those who are willing to debate him. All previous offers to debate User:Conservative have met with one of the following responses:
:::::*Declined because the opponent is too "obscure" or not "prominent" enough.
:::::*Declined because the opponent would not meet his arcane list of demands.
:::::*Declined because his eventual victory is assured.
:::::*Ignored, then treated the requester to one of his world famous non-sequitur answers.(popular)
:::::*Ignored, no response given.
:::::*Ignored, offending offer deleted and burned.

:::::That's about it. That is all you can ever hope to get. Why? Because he's not interested in sharing, comparing, and contrasting ideas in a thoughtful manner. Nope, he just wants to ridicule and frustrate people. There's a word for that... rhymes with roll... mole? coal? Anyway, good luck. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 01:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Pardon the puns, but I am only interested in debating the "big cheeses" within the atheist community and not the "small fries". :) I challenged the overweight atheist [[Penn Jillette]] to debate me, but he ran away which no doubt caused him to be out of breathe. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Bad Info==

The info on this page seems to be inaccurate, recent studies show that religious people are around 50% more likely to be obese than non believers, or at least non worshipers. Furthermore obesity occurrences in the United States seem to be centered around the Bible Belt and more Christian-Conservative States. Perhaps instead of criticizing other groups we should begin a campaign to educate fellow Christians and help people make healthier choices in their life. In my opinion, not taking care of your body is a sin, I think we should strive to make people healthier and perhaps start a campaign such as the successful [[Question Evolution Campaign]]. Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700124603/Study-finds-link-between-religion-obesity.html Gelatin
::First of all, you misread your own source. Second, the shortcomings of the NorthWestern study have been discussed on this talk page. Third, as far as geographical area you are talking about, you haven't discussed other variables and last time I checked we still live in a multiple variable world. I suggest reading some books on statistics and improving your reading comprehension skills. Lastly, we really don't have any reliable reports of Moses, Elijah, Jesus or the Apostles Paul and Peter being overweight and I would be hard pressed to find more religious people than these very religious biblical figures. On the other hand, I certainly did show quite a few atheist leaders who have had weight challenges despite the fact that medical science, nutritional science and exercise science offers a host of solutions on a maintaining healthy weight. But just to make sure you are not a typical atheist denialist, has the [[New Atheism]] leadership had significant problems with being overweight? Has the [[American Atheists]] organization had significant problems with its leaders being overweight? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Do you have any reports of Moses, Elijah etc NOT being overweight? As the only contemporary references we have to most of the prophets are in books the wrote themselves I don't think this is an argument I'd like to defend. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:16, 21 December 2011 (EST)
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Harry, Moses delivered to the Israel the Mosaic law. I believe that eating kosher is healthy. Ultra-orthodox Jews don't seem to have a problem with excess weight.]]
{{clear}}
I just find it interesting that we would concern ourselves with the incidence of obesity in atheists, as this seems rather non-sequitor. Why not look at things that are more related to faith and morality such as crime rates (http://current.com/community/92831935_atheists-supply-less-than-1-of-prison-populations-while-christians-make-up-75.htm) (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) or sexual morality (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) or racism and ethnocentrism (http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf) even intelligence would be more telling than obesity (http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33) [[User:CatholicBill]]

:As I understand it, the argument is that obesity is itself linked to most of these factors. For sexual morality, see [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. For intelligence, see the oft-made point that obese individuals may be ignoring scientific research into diet and exercise. For ethnocentricity, one might perhaps suggest that obese atheists are ignoring healthy ethnic foods such as brown rice and mung beans (should this be added to the article?). So you see, it's not that those issues are excluded, it's that effort is made to cover as many issues as possible, as amply as possible. The expansive obsesity writings enable anti-atheist fingers to be dipped into many pies.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:41, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::Is this a bad time to point out that dipping fingers in pies is likely to lead to obesity? :-) --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 13:20, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::::User: CatholicBill, the article is about atheism and obesity - not crime statistics. It is certainly no crime to overeat or be overweight. Please stick to the topic of the article. Be that as it may: [http://creation.com/atheism#incarceration HERE is some crime statistics in relation to no-religion people you are failing to bring up.] As far as your other "arguments", you are failing to recognize that we live in a multi-variable world. For example, if affluence is related to atheism because people get "fat and sassy" (rebellious) towards God when their wallet is fuller then that would certainly affect IQ levels since their is a correlation between wealth and IQ. By the way, if atheists are so smart, then why did the Soviet Union fall? :) Lastly, the atheist community could take much of the wind out of the sails of this article simply by losing weight which is easy to do if you comply with what nutritional science, exercise science and medical science say to do. Atheists purport to love science so this should be quite easy to do if their purported love of science is genuine. So instead of kvetching about this article, I suggest that the atheist community get more serious about applying the health sciences within their community. If you are an atheist, next time you feel tempted to eat a Whopper ask yourself "What would Jesus eat?" According to the [[Mayo Clinic]] the Mediterranean diet/lifestyle (which is what Jesus ate/did) is quite healthy and compatible with weight loss.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] For example, Jesus no doubt ate figs and figs are a "sweet way to lose weight" or maintain a healthy weight.[http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=24#healthbenefits] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Ad Hominem Abusive==

This page is guilty of a major logical fallacy, that is, the ad hominem abusive [http://www.conservapedia.com/Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem_abusive]. If you don't wish to follow the link and read up, it basically means that pointing out some negative aspect of a person or group that holds a particular belief does not change the truth or falsehood of that belief, as long as the negative aspect is unrelated to the issue at stake. The belief must stand or fall on its own. Even assuming EVERY atheist is obese, this has no impact on the veracity of their belief. It is pointed out that atheists are obese because they ignore nutritive science. However, nutritive science and theology are utterly separate fields - one's adherence or non adherence to nutritive science has no bearing on one's belief in the existence or non existence of God (or a god) --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 08:47, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::I have never seen the fallacy described as applying to a group. I think you are changing the definition of this fallacy. Second, the article doesn't claim that the existence of overweight atheists means that God exists. If it had, you would certainly have pointed that out. The issue of a segment of the atheist community ignoring nutritional science, exercise science and medical science seems to upset you. By the way, if memory serves, if you had read the talk page more carefully, I believe this issue was already covered. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I believe the amount of atheist obesity in many societies will decrease as there will be less atheists. I suggest reading: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:38, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
::::::I hadn't noticed the others, thanks for the heads up. Shall I remove this section? It seems unnecessary. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 23:07, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You can leave it. You redefining a fallacy and it being pointed out was useful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Other countries plus America's culture which is historically more car centered ==

:Rather contrary to the rather limited 'studies' that this article bases its claims off, I think it'd be most logical to conclude that atheism is inversely proportional to obesity, when you consider the USA has one of the highest (if not the highest) obesity rates in the Western world, and also happens to be the most religious.
Where do most Christians reside in the world? The East or the West? Are people in the East thinner? Do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolate the religious variable in relation to health habits and/or obesity? More importantly, do you have any large studies comparable to the Gallup study in size which isolates the variable of religiousness in relation to health habits and/or obesity and measures the "Very religious". The reason I ask these questions is that we know the major variables of income, education and race affect how people eat/exercise.

In addition, we know that America is the birth place of large scale automobile manufacturing ([[Henry Ford]] and Ford Motor Company) plus has had federal/state public policy pushing the interstate highways and suburbia (Also, America had white flight out of the cities and into the suburbs).[http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/roads/TRANSCRIPT.html] So it comes as no big surprise that America has a very automobile centered culture and has less of a bicycle/walking culture than many Western nations (bike lanes and bike paths, etc). Of course, this has a significant negative impact on the amount of exercise in America and adds to obesity.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164816][http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf]

Next, to make sure you are not an atheist denialist, did a significant number of the New Atheism founders (and [[PZ Myers]]} have a significant problem with being overweight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] Similarly, does/did a significant number of the board of directors of the [[American Atheists]] organization have a problem with being overweight? See: [[Atheism and obesity]] Also, does [[Penn Jillette]] have a problem with being overweight?

In short, your analysis was far too simplistic and suffered as a result. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:::By the way, thanks for reminding me about this article. I just added [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8106603.stm another picture citation] to the [[Atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Addendum: I added a few pictures that further illustrate the issue of atheism and obesity and/or the problems associated with atheist obesity. For example, atheist [[PZ Myers]]' difficulty ascending and descending the dinosaur model at the [[Creation Museum]] due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#PZ_Myers.27_visit_to_the_Creation_Museum] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Form follows function ==

Or in this case - the form reflects the content: it is just messy:
*there are two sections above the TOC
*the references/notes are a mess: generally each should show which source is quoted. That's helpful for the reader when he ponders whether the link is worth following...
*having a separate section for each atheist is messy and clutters the TOC - especially as those section sometimes only state the name.
*it is a pain to read: e.g, the phrase ''in addition'' pops up a dozen times...

The whole subject is ridiculous, but User:Conservative, when you are spending so much time micro-managing it, couldn't you try to improve its outfit and readability? Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]

:For those in a hurry, I have condensed some of the essential info about individuals into a [[Gallery of obese atheists|gallery page]]. They do say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Could a link from this page be added?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:08, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

== Comment for User:Conservative ==

I must commend you for all your work tying fat people to atheism/homosexuality/etc., etc. Too bad you don't spend your time trying to help both sectors (obese people and atheists) by showing compassion and God's love rather than disdain and mockery.

True witnessing for God doesn't consist of putting people down because you dislike them for either their appearance (obese people - you obviously have an issue with them) or their beliefs (atheists).

How many people do you truly think you've brought to God with your writings? As an obese Christian, I know you've offended me with your attempts to link obesity with everything you hate, and I doubt that disbelievers would feel any less offended. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:11, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Edited to add: Quite frankly, your writings make me feel toward you the same way as I have ever felt toward the bullies I've encountered in my real life. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
=== Response of User: Conservative ===
Sharon, above are discussions about atheism and obesity.

As far as [[Homosexuality and obesity]] among other things I cited this:

"The journalist [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:

The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the Centers for Disease Control looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and 7) weight management. (emphasis added)"[http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505]

You may disagree with me, but I think the [[Centers for Disease Control]] is a valid source to use in this instance. I am not saying the CDC is perfect, but nevertheless I don't have a problem with citing them in this instance. I also have no problem citing a conservative journalist who formerly worked for a leading newspaper and a conservative organization.

Also, today I added some health/fitness information on weight loss plus some additional information from responsible sources. I don't see why an encyclopedia should refrain from offering useful/valid information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:42, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

::I disagree with the tone of your writings, yes. Please explain to me how [http://conservapedia.com/Gallery_of_obese_atheists this] helps anyone? Does it draw people closer to God's word? Does it show God's love? Or does it show pettiness instead? It's certainly not funny, or educational, or loving in any way. But then again, I guess you don't claim to be witnessing, do you? What exactly is the purpose behind the linking of obesity to everything you hate? Are you even ''trying'' to convert anyone? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't see us agreeing on the topics of obesity and atheism/homosexuality anytime soon. But I know I did cite relevant sources such as the [[Centers for Disease Control]]/Peter LaBarbera (see above) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this Pubmed material]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I doubt that I'll ever think bullying behavior toward obese people is the correct way to act. And I notice you totally fail to answer my questions - why? You accuse people of being cowards when they fail to answer your questions. Maybe you ought to take a good, long look in the mirror. Don't flatter yourself that you win when you avoid answering. I've challenged you before about having a debate over the treatment Conservapedia deals out toward fat people. Care to take me up on it? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:09, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Other commentary ==

You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list. They pretty much ate a Mosaic diet or Mediterranean diet employing reasonable portions and had sufficient exercise.
::Conveniently, there doesn't exist any portraits of these people that were done from life, so you're making an assumption here. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:29, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Here are some interesting articles on weight loss and maintaining a healthy weight:

*[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011 Mediterranean diet] by [[Mayo Clinic]]
*[http://www.motleyhealth.com/fitness/how-much-exercise-is-needed-to-get-fit-and-lose-weight How much exercise is needed to get fit and lose weight]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/healthy_living/fitness/daily_howmuch.shtml Exercise: How much? - BBC News]
*[http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/news-releases/2011/08/01/acsm-issues-new-recommendations-on-quantity-and-quality-of-exercise American College of Sports Medicine]

My thoughts on this matter agree with this material: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]

I have met people from various parts of the world and there is far less obesity in the [[Eastern World]] than in many parts of the [[Western World]] and I think the reason is that they eat better, get more exercise and are often more disciplined. Also, Asian Americans generally lead more healthy lives too than many westerners. I have a feeling that Amy Chua doesn't allow her kid(s) to eat a lot of snacks and watch a lot of television. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Non sequitur. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

:''You won't see Jesus, Moses, Apostle Paul or the Apostle Peter in your list.'' No, the list doesn't imply that all Christians are obese! Do you think that there are only fat atheists?
:It seems that your belief is just one amongst a lot more influential factors when it comes to personal appearance.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:27, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Im surprised Richard Dawkins wasn;t there. Then again, it makes sense. The entire essay revolves around a fictional premise that atheists are obese in comparison to Christians.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:Isn't Richard Dawkins an agnostic? It is rather humorous that a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement was an agnostic. :) Also, didn't 3/5 of the New Atheism movmement's founders have excess weight? See: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:19, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

User:Conservative - you have once again deleted a comment of mine. It was not offensive, nor was it trolling. I request that you please restore it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:22, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::The brief discussion was pointless and was only going to lead to bickering. I have decided to move on. I will say for the record that I didn't initially create [[Essay: Gallery of obese atheists|the gallery]] nor did I add any pictures of new people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Do try to remember that you had to delete and oversight our "brief discussion" the next time you want to call someone a coward. And yes, while you didn't initially create ''this'' gallery, you are the only one on this site obsessed with creating all of the "Conservapedia hates fat people" articles - you know the ones where you say fat people are atheists, lesbians, homosexuals, blah, blah, blah. You pretend you're being helpful by providing the links to diets, etc., but the disdainful language surrounding the links trumps them. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:55, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::For the record, I have never said that all overweight people are atheists or lesbians/homosexuals nor have I said that CP hates overweight people.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::But you do not deny deleting and oversighting a discussion you had with SharonW. As she says, please remember that next time you throw out an accusation of cowardice or unwillingness to debate. I know that all those you make the accusation against certainly will. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 17:07, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::David, if you want to accuse me of cowardice despite my offers to debate prominent atheists/evolutionists, I am not particularly concerned. If you are a fan of the agnostic/evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] or [[Penn Jillette]] or fan of any other prominent evolutionists or atheists, I would encourage you to ask them to engage in written debate with me. For example, feel free to contact Dawkins about this open debate offer: [[Essay: Debate challenge for Richard Dawkins]]. My material has been read by a lot of people and given the current decline of [[global atheism]] and global agnosticism which is expected to accelerate and the decline of American evolutionism in the last 17 months [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html], they clearly need to do something if the care about their religions. But if they want to fiddle while [[Essay: Penn Jillette, don't just stand there! Do something!|global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burns]] that is fine with me. My fellow Bible believing Christians and I have no problem roasting hot dogs and marshmellows (in moderation of course) on the bonfire of global atheism/agnosticism/evolutionism burning. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Addendum: As far as oversighting a few sentences of material because I didn't want to be dragged into the ridiculous debate of whether Jesus was overweight, I have no regrets. Being charged with cowardice about the matter was rather humorous though. In retrospect, it was definitely one of the most humorous things to occur on CP. Jesus was a carpenter before the days of power tools and then he became a traveling preacher/prophet who did a lot of walking. Plus, he lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago and ate a healthy Mosaic diet. I very much doubt anyone is going to give someone an extended debate about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Way to go once again with a strawman. You know nothing about me but because I point out that you removed a comment to prevent debate, whilst accusing others of cowardice of when they do not reply to your invitations on this site to debate, you feel free to make unfounded and unsupported assertions about me. But we all know that is your modus operandi and my pointing it out will not change anything will it? Incidentally, can you point me to a shop where I can but marshmellows, I rather fancy trying some roasted. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:09, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Silly! You get them in the Mellow Marshes. Obviously. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:52, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I don't want to indulge [[User:Conservative]] any more than I absolutely have to, but making a claim about an individual's diet 2000 years ago based on (what appear to be) cultural norms is fallacious and entirely speculative. For one, my guess would be that polytheists, in general, would also have a similar diet. By your argument, Christians are obese because Christian Americans eat fatty food (see the gallery above). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:12, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
:I forgot to add that it's really not fair to compare average weights of people in societies over 2000 years old (when starvation and food production are major issues) and today (where we have significantly increased our food production capacity; very few first-world people are starving to death). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:14, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::GregG, why don't you ask [[William Lane Craig]] to debate someone on this topic. If he thinks it is a serious topic, I am sure he will hold a debate on this matter. I hope you will forgive me for saying this, but I have my doubts Craig is going to hold a debate about this topic. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:34, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

Good grief, Conservative - you were blathering on about nobody wanting to buy a picture of a fat Jesus, and I pointed out that people buy pictures of Jesus portrayed as blond, blue-eyed Caucasian all the time, and that I doubted that Jesus actually looked like that. Those were the comments you over-sighted. There was no argument about whether or not Jesus was fat - I just pointed out that ''you can't possibly know for certain''. I have offered to debate you about your treatment of obese people, and you have refused. You are the one who accuses people of cowardice over not debating. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:00, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
::A general message to all re: the [[Atheism and obesity]] article:

::I have not had a campaign against overweight people in general.

::I merely pointed out the obesity in the atheist, homosexual and lesbian populations in the Western World. I also pointed out that atheists pretend to love science and science gives us abundance information on how to lose weight and the negative effects of being overweight. Workout an hour or more a day (strength training and aerobic exercise) and eat a sensible diet (reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables or Mediterranean diet or Zone diet, low glycemic foods, etc.) and the vast majority of people will lose the weight and keep it off with a reasonable amount of maintenance exercise. I provided all the information on how to lose weight and keep it off via a healthy lifestyle.

::I also pointed out that in 2005, there were 4 times as many Eastern World Christians as Western World Christians (and that Eastern World people have healthier lifestyles in general) and there is a significant amount of data indicating that the very religious in America live healthier lifestyles than others in America. Plus, I gave sound research indicating that religion in the West tends to increase self-discipline (all other things remaining equal of course).

::In addition, I pointed out that there seems to be a higher incidence of obesity within the homosexual population and provided sound evidence. Most homosexuals are liberals and liberals purport to love science so I don't see why this is not fair to point out.

::I also pointed out that people cannot reasonably claim that Jesus, Moses, Peter and the Apostle Paul were overweight. For example, there are several Bible passages against gluttony and sloth. The Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony and sloth. Given that many Western atheists presently scoff at how superior their ideology is over a biblical worldview this is certainly fair to point out.

::I realize that the Western World has become prosperous and history teaches us that prosperity in a culture can lead to complacency and those cultures declining/falling. As a result, advocating self-discipline is not going to be a popular idea among many at the present time. Recently, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeeFhnlHvk a book came out] essentially saying that overweight people in general need to be more self-disciplined, personally responsible and more mentally tough and if memory serves he ignited caller complaints after his public appearances (By the way, the author is an ex overweight guy and it appears he is a libertarian atheist or at least anti-Bible).

::Lastly, as far as the [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire]], atheists (and liberals) sure seem willing to dish out satire, but I have noticed that they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Could atheist pride be the issue? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:11, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I was wondering [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. You quite rightly, in my opinion, have a dislike of obese people - especially atheists. Are you willing to reveal the weight of the collective known as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]? Personally I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh (currently) 14 stone. What do you (and/or your respective contributors) weigh. If you are unwilling to reveal the number of members of your collective (a somewhat socialist concept I must say) then an average weight will do if you are willing to provide it. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 10:42, 30 June 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Sun Tzu portrait.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"Subtle! Subtle! They become formless. Mysterious! Mysterious! They become soundless. Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]] ]]
::::David, do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? You certainly have provided no proof and evidence that I/we dislike obese people - none! :) Secondly, within reason people rightly like others who stick to their guns on matters and prior to User:Conservative's material on obesity and the atheism/homosexuality, User: Conservative did say that no identifying information would be give on us/me. :) Of course, it goes without saying that this policy will continue. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 30 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::Maybe not "dislike", as "determined to constantly and consistently portray in as negative a manner as possible" with as many links to things you ''do'' dislike. I personally don't see much difference. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

===Biblical position===
Is the Bible really so strongly against overeating, as [[user:Conservative]] says?

Jesus only discusses the topic once, in Matthew Chapter 11 (and also as recounted in Luke), where he addresses accusations, presumably made by those killjoy Pharisees, that ''he himself'' was a glutton. He doesn't seem remotely troubled by the accusations, does not bother to deny or refute them, and seems to say that it doesn't really matter whether one chooses to be abstemious (like John the Baptist) or indulgent (like the Son of Man).

So I don't think [[user:Conservative]]'s claim that "[t]he Bible is definitely not friendly to gluttony" really gives the whole story. And I would rather agree with Jesus than with the Pharisees, who presumably also thought there was a biblical basis for their own misguided finger-wagging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:02, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, as you are probably aware, the Apostle Paul declared: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Timothy 3:16). Accordingly, when it comes to the issues of gluttony and sloth, these portions of the Bible also need to be taken into account: Old Testament (such as Proverbs), the words of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter and any other Bible verses on this matter. Christians should not inadvertently or intentionally employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]] when informing themselves on these issues. Here are some verses in the Bible on gluttony: [http://www.openbible.info/topics/gluttony Biblical teaching on gluttony]. Biblical teaching on laziness/sloth: http://codybateman.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/laziness-introduction-and-bible-study-guide/

:::In addition, it would be unwise for Christians to ignore what medical science and other disciplines of science indicate on these matters. (see: [[Physical and mental health related problems associated with obesity]]). Besides the obvious benefit of feeling better and having more energy and thus getting more done through avoiding the besetting sins of gluttony and sloth (Paul did command Christians to be good stewards and to make the most of their time), preventative medicine is often better than treating illness after the fact.

:::I realize that working out and eating right are not always fun and require self-discipline. But like most things in life, in most cases, it merely requires replacing bad habits with good habits. The reason why many diets fail is that people never establish a healthy lifestyle via establishing good habits. In addition, people can do things to make exercise more fun or productive (music, audio books, etc.).
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077]
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

:::Next, I do think that Christians need to be informed about church history plus not have a myopic view of the world. In many cases, it could be argued that at the present time the Western World church is behaving like the undisciplined Church at Corinth which the Apostle Paul had to correct.[http://www.churchleaders.com/?news=139580/] Let's not forget, there are plenty of Christians in the world who are living healthy lifestyles and avoiding the sins of gluttony and sloth. See: [[Global Christianity]]

:::Lastly, there are certainly self-disciplined Christians in the West and no doubt some of them were a part of the Gallup survey and other social science data (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). For example, in the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'', psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on [[self-control]]/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I see you are siding with the Pharisees, then.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:03, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Here are the questions that I think you need to consider. They are in two groups, one focusing on Jesus' position, and one on that of the Pharisees:
::::'''JESUS:''' Do you agree that Jesus seems to say that gluttony isn't really a big deal in Matthew 11? You seem to think that it is a big deal - are you therefore saying that Jesus was wrong? Or is it more important now than it was - if Jesus was on earth nowadays and was accused of being a glutton, do you think he would deny the accusation more vigorously? Or would Jesus, if on earth today, follow a strict diet so that the accusation would not be made? Why did he not do so in the first century?

::::'''PHARISEES:''' One way the Pharisees attacked Jesus was by calling him a glutton. Do you think they were right or justified to do so? How do your accusations of gluttony, used to attack atheists and homosexuals, differ from the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, if at all? What do you think was the Pharisees' basis for being against gluttony? Would it have been scriptural? Would it have been justified? How would it have differed, if at all, from your own scriptural basis? Is it possible that you have followed the same process as the Pharisees in arriving at your own views about gluttony?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:16, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

==Article Structure==
This article seems a bit overly complex in its structure. When there are 54 sections in the contents bar, it seems to me that some of these could be merged or deleted without changing the overall flow of the article too much. I don't intend to make any particular changes, because certain admins seem to have a lot of effort invested in this article, and I'd rather not irritate people higher up the food chain than me, but that's my opinion at this point.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:42, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
:Addendum: If the particular example subsections could be organized in some way (possibly alphabetical by last name), I feel that that might help with the readability of the article to some extent.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 14:47, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Hand and cookies.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Obesity is positively associated with [[neuroticism]], impulsiveness, and lower [[self-control|self-discipline]].
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/waytoocrowded/1899823572/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
:::When deciding the order of the pictures, I LARGELY used a combination of chronological order, the prominence of the atheist and their atheism and obesity "weight class". Should some of these atheists follow the recommendations of [[medical science]], [[nutritional science]] and [[exercise science]], I may move them lower down the in article.

:::There are a number of topics within and related to the atheism and obesity such as irreligion and irrationality (see: [[Irreligion and superstition]]). Some of the causes of obesity are neuroticism, impulsiveness, anger and lower self-discipline issues (see: [[Atheism and obesity]]). Of course, these causes of obesity are also related to irrationality and God-hating. See also: [[Causes of atheism]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:03, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
=Unlock this page please=
I have material to add--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 01:20, 6 April 2014 (EDT)

Causes of Homosexuality

2014-03-27T16:40:33Z

JerryCa: Undo revision 1081080 by Liambootybootybooty (talk)

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|275px|thumb|Homosexuality is rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]].]]

The '''causes of [[homosexuality]]''' are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most [[liberal]] school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.<ref>Sylvia Thorson-Smith, ''Reconciling the broken silence'', p. 30</ref> The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

==Causes of homosexuality - Biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a robot - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

The record of [[Sodom]], as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where [[iniquity]] abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]] - [[Benjamin Martin]]]]

In [[Romans 1]], God, through the [[apostle Paul]], condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]].

In summary, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, [[feminist]]s, wishing to deny the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|God-given role of women]], often engage in [[goddess]] worship and other forms of [[idolatry]]<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/goddess.html "Probe Ministries: Goddess Worship," by Russ Wise]</ref> and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into a lesbian], from [[WorldNetDaily]]</ref>

=== Conclusion of Biblical explanation ===

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the [[etiology]] of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''[[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytical theory]]'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of [[Experimental science|experimental]] data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 ''[[USA Today]]'' article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a so called [[Emotional Incest Syndrome]], for example when a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, "Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men", ''Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology'', 33. (1969), pp. 129-33.</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. <ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'' (1985), pp.184-85.</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981).</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", ''Journal of abnormal psychology'', 76 (1970), 396-402.</ref>

===Educational indoctrination===
As part of the liberal ideology in modern [[education]], and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual [[activist]]s, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of [[HIV]] instruction of preventing [[suicide]] by homosexuals, and preventing ''[[homophobia]]''. <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=12546&department=MEDIA&categoryid=family CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents], Concerned Women for America, 3/13/2007</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2009/06/17/indoctrination-of-youth/ Roberto Santiago, The Indoctrination of our Youth],The Chronicle Watch, June 17, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/oldagenda26.php GLSEN, Corruption and Crime], Mission America</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127050 'Hate' laws could label 5-year-olds 'offenders'] WorldNetDaily, March 05, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126233 'Czar' sees transgender school goals in reach], WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683 District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination], WorldNetDaily, March 13, 2007</ref>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>.
*7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>.

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref>
[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|The [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene.<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> ]]

=== Causes of homosexuality and origins paradigms ===

In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of [[evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning [[homosexuality]]. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality:
Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref> However, this is not always the case, and many children who manifest gender non-conformity are simply trying to discover what gender is.

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

Ironically, the homosexuals themselves argued back in 1971 that homosexuality is "merely a preference, orientation, or propensity"<ref name="RainbowHistory">{{cite web |title=The Rainbow History Project|url=http://www.rainbowhistory.org/html/apazap.htm}}</ref>. One homosexual received the question on this topic in the CBS documentary from 1967: "Most homosexuals if they had a chance [i.e. choice] to be a heterosexual, would they? Well, I have a friend who took a poll of 300 people on that very question, he asked them: If you were able to take a pill to change yourself from homosexual to heterosexual, would you do it? And something like 95% of men said: “No.”"<ref name="CBS">{{cite web |title=Time Capsule: Mike Wallace tells truth about homosexuality in 1967 documentary |publisher=CBS |page=02min:58sec |url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/time-capsule-mike-wallace-tells-truth-about-homosexuality-in-1967-documenta}}</ref>

Romana Schlesinger, a prominent gay activist and organizer of [[Gay pride|Gay parades]] in Slovakia, referred to homosexuality as to 'way of living' (lifestyle) in an interview.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Schlesinger: Prestaňme sa točiť okolo hriechu
|author=Michal Piško
|publisher=sme.sk
|date=08-June-2012
|url=http://www.sme.sk/c/6410997/schlesinger-prestanme-sa-tocit-okolo-hriechu.html
|quote= Takisto by som nesúhlasila s tým, aby homosexuálny učiteľ presviedčal, že homosexualita je jediný správny spôsob života. (In the same way I would not agree that the homosexual lifestyle is the only correct one.)
|accessdate=10-February-2013
|language=Slovak}}</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref> <ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]
*[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My genes made me do it!]

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[ABC Theory of Emotion]]
*[[Defensive detachment]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Labour Party (UK)

2014-03-26T16:20:46Z

JerryCa: They were Democratic Socialist but then moved to the center. Recently they have swung to the left a little but not to the extent of old.

The '''Labour Party''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Social Democratic]]<ref>http://www.labour.org.uk/labour_policies</ref> political party. The party still pays lip service to many typical [[left-wing]] values and, along with all the main political parties in the UK, is [[Pro-choice]], pro-gay rights and pro-[[gun control]]. Typically the Labour Party is in favour of greater investment in public services via higher taxation relative to its main political rivals.

The Labour Party was founded in 1900, and currently forms the [[Leader of the Opposition|Her Majesty's Opposition]], being the largest party in the UK not in currently in government. The current leader of the Labour Party is [[Ed Miliband]], who was elected by Labour party members on September 25th 2010, after a crushing defeat four months earlier in the UK's [[general election]]. It is a observer member of the [[Socialist International]]. [[Image:Labour logo.jpg|right|thumb|170px|The Labour Party's logo]]

==History==
===Origins===
The Labour Party was formed out of an alliance of several prominent left-wing and socialist movements that existed in Britain at the turn of the century. Chief amongst them the were the [[Trades Union Congress]], the [[Fabian Society]], and the [[Independent Labour Party]]. The group took the name [[Labour Representation Committee]], later adopting the name [[Labour Party]] after achieving seats in the [[House of Commons]] at the 1906 election. Much of the intellectual energy came from the [[Fabian Socialism|Fabians, an informal group of intellectual socialists.]]

The rise of Marxist socialism in the late 19th century in the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) (1881-1911) did not create a militantly atheistic and anti-religious force. From its beginnings, circa 1881, the SDF contained Christians, non-Christians, and anti-Christians. These groups generally coexisted in a state of compromise. The membership of the SDF was generally secularist and freethinking but religion was not a central issue. For all parties in the SDF, the central issue was commitment to socialism.

[[File:Labour1910.jpg|thumb|290px|Labour called for abolition of the [[House of Lords]] in 1910; when elected, they kept it and appointed their own favourites to peerages. Later posters dropped the violent imagery and called for peaceful change.]]

===Interwar period===
In its early years the Labour Party benefited from an alliance with the other main left-wing party in Britain, the [[Liberal Party]]; from a growth in working class consciousness; and from dissatisfaction with both the Liberal and [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] parties in the wake of what were perceived to be their mistakes in the handling of the [[First World War]]. Winning growing numbers of seats at each election, the Labour Party was finally able to form a government in 1924 under the leadership of [[Ramsay MacDonald]]. However this was short-lived. The party did not have an outright majority, and in fact only had about one third of the total seats within the House. After just nine months the Party lost an important vote, and the government resigned. Four days before the election the ''[[Daily Mail]]'' published the "[[Zinoviev Letter]]", a forgery that seemed to indicate that the Communist Party of Great Britain was planning subversion or even a violent revolution in cooperation with Labour. The letter was leaked by the Foreign Ministry. The Labour Party was badly defeated in the 1924 general election, even though its vote increased by one million. The Conservative vote was up by two million as the Liberal party was rapidly collapsing. Historians agree the Zinoviev Letter was a forgery but their consensus is that it made little difference in the election. What is more important, after the election Labour leaders used it as an excuse for their failure; it became a roadblock to needed internal reforms in the Labour party.

[[File:Labour1929.jpg|thumb|300px|Despite the deliberate appeal to middle class voters in this 1929 poster, most Labour voters were working class blokes who did not wear white collars and ties.]]
The Labour Party briefly formed a government again in 1929, but this did not survive the effects of the [[Great Depression]]. In a dispute over the best way to handle the economic consequences of the global financial crash, the Party leadership fractured. A new "National Government" drawn from all parties was formed, with [[Ramsay MacDonald]] still as Prime Minister. However this was dominated by the other parties, particularly the Conservatives, who went on to dominate the British political scene for the rest of the interwar period.

===Victory in 1945===
The [[Second World War]] saw a major shift in political attitudes within Britain, and led to a landslide victory for [[Clement Attlee]] in 1945. The modest, unassuming intellectual Attlee named a cabinet that included all elements of the party. Of 37 ministers, eight were former coal miners, and eleven had been active trade unionists.

This government introduced sweeping reforms of industry and the creation of the [[welfare state]]. Attlee's government nationalised major industries, founded the [[National Health Service]], and developed the idea of welfare from cradle to grave paid for out of taxation and available to everyone free of charge. Much of the welfare state is still in force today.

The Labour government was fiercely anti-Communist, but the economy was so weak it had to relinquish a leadership role to the United States. Atlee pushed President [[Harry Truman]] to take over Britain's historic roles, especially in Greece, and indeed helped push the U.S. into the [[Cold War]] against the [[Soviet Union]].

After losing in 1951, the Labour Party spent the next 13 years out of office and achieved little during the governments of Wilson (1964-1970 and 1974-1976) and his successor James Callaghan (1976-79). Their failures set the stage for the renewal of British energy and leadership under [[Margaret Thatcher]], beginning in 1979.

===Socialism===
Despite its historic commitment to socialism, the British Labour Party has been flexible and reformist in its doctrine ever since it was founded in 1900. After the crisis of 1931, the party adopted a broadly social democratic program in which socialism was linked with the idea of economic planning and social welfare. The Attlee government of 1945-51 was very moderate in its commitment to socialism. The years of opposition saw violent arguments in the party between left-wing Bevanites and the center-right supporters of [[Hugh Gaitskell]]. But the main differences concerned foreign and defense policy. On domestic issues, the party was now broadly revisionist, committed to the mixed economy and social equality.
[[File:Atlee45.jpg|thumb|370px|Atlee defeats Churchill in 1945, and becomes bowler for the British cricket team; he faces difficult issues like housing and finance which are coming to bat.]]

==New Left==
Wilson, on becoming prime minister in 1964, tried to bypass old doctrinal arguments by harnessing nationalized industry to ideas of scientific modernization. But his government was a great failure, not least in its relations with the trade unions, the linchpin of the party since its founding. Wilson represented the older traditions of the Labour Party and never understood the emerging "New Left" with new social roots, new ideas and new styles of political behaviour in the late 1970s. Following the disillusion and demoralization of traditional Labour Party activists with Wilson's government, a more radical and well-educated local Labour leadership appeared at the local level. This bred much disillusionment and launched a new left-wing socialism in the 1970s. The Labour government of 1974-79 added to this division. The left-wing pressure reached its climax in the early 1980s when Thatcher was in power but resulted only in heavy defeats for Labour in 1983 and 1987. The general impression in 1989 is of a loss of political and intellectual confidence, with British socialism trapped between a cherished past and an uncertain future.<ref> Kenneth O. Morgan, ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)</ref>

===Social issues===
The Labour Party has also been a strong proponent of social reform. Under [[Harold Wilson]] in the late 60s, abortion and homosexuality were decriminalizes, the death penalty abolished and divorce was made easier. Unease from a perceived large number of immigrants from Commonwealth countries also led to four Race Relations Acts, all of which were passed under Labour governments.

===Industrial Strife===
see [[Winter of Discontent]]

The Labour Party always prided itself on strong links with [[Labor union|trade unions]], but by the late 1960s there was growing industrial unrest. Inflation was becoming a growing problem and unemployment began to rise. Harold Wilson was elected for a third time in February 1974, taking over from Conservative [[Edward Heath]] whose government was brought to its knees by oil shortages and a crippling coal miners' strike in 1973. Throughout the late 1970s strikes were commonplace, tight controls on pay rises, known as incomes policy, was struggling to curb inflation which reached a high of 28%. A series of devastating strikes in the winter of 1978/79 which became known as the [[Winter of Discontent]] led to the government of [[James Callaghan]] being defeated in a vote of no confidence and a general election which was won by the Conservative Party led by [[Margaret Thatcher]].

===A swing to the left===
[[Michael Foot]] became leader of the Labour Party in 1980 and took the party in a far left direction. The 1983 manifesto pledged to reverse all Thatcher's economic reforms; renationalise all privatised businesses, return taxes on the rich to the punitive level of the 1970s (98% in some cases), restore trade union powers, leave the European Economic Community, unilaterally surrender Britain's nuclear weapons and campaign for a united Ireland as a solution to the paramilitarism and terrorism that had beset the province of Northern Ireland throughout the 70s. The manifesto became known as the "longest suicide note in history" and was defeated by Thatcher's Conservatives in a landslide. Pro-EEC Labour Party members who formed their own party, the SDP, nearly polled more votes than the Labour Party. If not for the SDP's poorly thought-out electoral strategy (which gained plenty of votes, but almost no seats in the Commons), Labour could have been reduced to third party status in this election.

Foot was succeeded by [[Neil Kinnock]], who ditched much (but not all) of the far-left baggage from 1983. Under Kinnock, Labour was again defeated in a landslide in 1987 but, crucially, Labour came well ahead of the SDP (now in alliance with the Liberal Party).

===Tony Blair and "New Labour"===
The term New Labour didn't come into being until [[Tony Blair]] became leader in 1994, but the reform of the Labour Party took place long before then. By 1992, it was clear that Thatcher's reforms had struck a chord with voters and the Labour party were no longer promising to renationalise industries or restore trade union powers. Only the top rate of income tax would be raised from 40 to 50%. Opinion polls during the election campaign predicted a very close result, but the Conservative party won a narrow victory of 23 seats after an unusually high turnout.

John Smith became leader in 1992, but his sudden death in 1994 led to Tony Blair to become leader and the term "New Labour" was born. Blair started by reforming Clause IV. Clause IV dealt with the purpose of the Party and referred direct to its erstwhile desire for public ownership of the means of production; the current version instead calls for 'a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few'.
The revised version mentions "socialism" as a sop to the old timers:
:The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’

Blair promised no increases in income tax and pledged to run a stable economy. He scored landslide victories in 1997, and again in 2001.

One of Blair's most controversial decisions was to [[Iraq War|invade Iraq]] in 2003 alongside the Americans and other allies. Britain became the second largest contributor of armed forces to [[George W. Bush]]'s "Coalition of the Willing", and Blair staunchly defended the position, and won supporting votes in parliament. Partly due to the war's unpopularity, and partly to a perception that the Government had raised taxes on business and individuals to unacceptable levels, the Labour party won a much smaller majority in 2005 and has seen key bills defeated by backbench revolts such as the plan to hold terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

Blair had lost his momentum, so he retired in mid-2007 and was replaced per prior arrangement by his long-time Chancellor, [[Gordon Brown]]. The worldwide [[Recession of 2008]], continuing into 2009, hit Britain hard and has yet to bottom out. Labour took much of the blame, and its polling rates dropped to levels not seen since the early 1980s. Labour's popularity continued to decline in 2009, as the party made its worst electoral showing in a hundred years in the EU elections in June 2009. Brown, however, beat back his disunited critics, reorganized his cabinet, and stumbled onward. The Conservatives maintain a large lead for the next general election, which must be held by spring 2010.

==PR and spin==

With the formation of New Labour under the leadership of [[Tony Blair]] and along with the support of spin doctors such as [[Peter Mandelson]], the modern Labour Party has been accused of being an extremely deceptive PR machine; being highly dishonest in its dealings with the public and media.

==Sharia Infiltration==
A 2010 newspaper report repeated a claim by [[Jim Fitzpatrick]], the MP for [[Poplar and Canning Town]] that the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) had effectively created a party within the party in east London. The IFE seeks to make Britain and [[Europe]] an Islamic state. In covert investigations by the media it was determined that the IFE were expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people and organized meetings with extremists, including [[Taliban]] allies. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7333420/Islamic-radicals-infiltrate-the-Labour-Party.html Islamic radicals 'infiltrate' the Labour Party, TelegraphUK, February 27, 2010]</ref>

{{cquote| [They are] placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it's at local government level or national level.}}

==Prime Ministers==

* [[Ramsay MacDonald]] (1924 and 1929-1935) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page136.asp]

[[File:Labour45.jpg|thumb|270px|Labour won an unexpected landslide in 1945]]
* [[Clement Attlee]] (1945-1951) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page133.asp]

* [[Harold Wilson]] (1964-1970 and 1974-1976) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page129.asp]

* [[James Callaghan]] (1976-1979) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page127.asp]

* [[Tony Blair]] (1997-2007) [http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp]

* [[Gordon Brown]] (2007-2010)
[[File:Labour45b.jpg|thumb|275px|left|Iconic 1945 election poster]]
==See also==
* [[Fabian Society]]
* [[Industrial Democracy]]

==Further reading==

* Davies, Andrew. ''To Build a New Jerusalem: The British Labour Party from Keir Hardie to Tony Blair'' (1996)
* Favretto, Ilaria."'Wilsonism' Reconsidered: Labour Party Revisionism, 1952-64." ''Contemporary British History'' 2000 14(4): 54-80 in [[EBSCO]]]]
* Morgan, Austen. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992), 625pp; negative appraisal
* Morgan, Kenneth O. ''Britain since 1945: The People's Peace'' (2001)
* Pimlott, Ben. ''Harold Wilson'' (1992). Pimlott tries to rehabilitate Wilson’s political reputation, revealing that he was the prisoner rather than the master of various domestic and international dilemmas.
* Swift, John. ''Labour in Crisis: Clement Attlee and the Labour Party in Opposition, 1931-1940'' (2001)
* Worley, Matthew. ''Labour inside the Gate: A History of the British Labour Party between the Wars'' (2005),

==External links==
*[http://www.labour.org.uk/home Official site]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:Labor Unions]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[category:New Left]]
[[category:1960s]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2014-03-23T01:27:39Z

JerryCa:

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

How do I get an invite to the Google group for this project? Thanks in advance. I would like also to assist with the project as I have time. - [[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Stephen, in Acts 7, said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Was he a liberal as well? What is frequently ignored is that there is two types of forgiveness: (1) forgiveness on a human level and (2) forgiveness on a divine level. I can forgive someone for sinning against me, but that does not mean God forgives them (if they've not repented). On the other hand, they could gain God's forgiveness, but I could staunchly refuse to forgive them out of anger and spite. So when Jesus said "Father forgive them," He was not granting them forgiveness on a divine level. If He WAS granting them divine forgiveness for their sins, He would have just pronounced their sins forgiven (like he did on other occasions in the NT). Instead, He asked the Father to forgive them. Why didn't Jesus pronounce their sins forgiven? Because they did not show faith in Him and they did not show repentance. His prayer was answered in part starting at Pentecost when the people were granted "remission of sins" through their repentance and subsequent baptism. The evidence supporting this passage's inclusion in the NT is overwhelming. I personally serve a God who can preserve His word through the ages. --[[User:BradleyC|BradleyC]]

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

VERY GOOD! [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 17:00, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Top 5 Bible verses==
{{cquote|If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the Conservative Bible Project. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.}}

According to the [http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-popular-bible-verses-revealed-29900/ Christian Post], the five most popular verses of the New Testament are John 3:16, John 1:1, John 14:6, Matthew 28:19 and Romans 2:23. So these a the verses most likely to be looked up in the CBP - let's have a look for ourselves.
{|class="wikitable"
!verse
!KJV
!NIV
!CBP
!Criticism
!CBP Contributor Responds
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 3:16
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|rowspan="2"|For God so loved the [people in the] world that He gave His Unique Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
|rowspan="1"|the bracketed bit seems to be clumsy, and it's impossible to read aloud... But more to the point ''unique Son'' (why ''Unique''? Are all attributes to the Lord to be capitalized?) isn't as good as ''one and only'': υἱός μονογενής generally refers to a single child.
|rowspan="1"|There is no problem reading the CBP version aloud, and it properly clarifies that God's love is for the people, not the world. The older translations now have an environmentalist spin due to changing meaning for the term "world". The capitalization is because Jesus is God; the "unique" conveys the significance better than "one and only" (which leaves the possibility of God having a daughter, or that Jesus was not unique).

Please note that Isaac was called Abraham's "υἱός μονογενής" as well, but he was not Abraham's only son (ever heard of Ishmael?). He was the son of promise, the one-of-a-kind son. In short, Isaac was the unique son of Abraham. To call Jesus the "one and only" Son is to say that Ishamel and the other six sons of Abraham weren't really his kids. Only Isaac was. Unique is a excellent translation. - BradleyC
|-
|
*I've never found a way to vocalize brackets satisfyingly - unless omitting them totally
*the Greek doesn't exclude the existence of a daughter, neither :-)
|-
!rowspan="2"|John 1:1
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|rowspan="2"|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
|Here, I like ''all'' versions :-)
|At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."
|-
|There seems to be a reason that this translation isn't in the canon of the CBP any longer: It doesn't seem to be stronger, richer, but only more confusing: It lacks the aesthetic beauty of the original. However: when you said to chose verses from the CBP, I only thought of the current version!
|-
!John 14:6
|Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
|Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
|Jesus said, "I am the Route, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
|Again, the capitalization. And then ''route'' - the ''way, path'' to the Father seems to be quite comfy...
|
|-
!Matthew 28:19
|Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
|"So go and make students from all ethnic groups, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Divine Guide,
|''ethnic groups''? Ethnic is a derivation from ἔθνος, but ''ethnic groups'' is quite a stretch! This is about the contrast of Jews and gentiles. And ''divine guide'' for ἅγιον πνεῦμα? Really? For me, that seems to be much to corporeal.
|
|-
!Romans 3:23
|For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
|for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
|For all are sinners, and fall short of the glory of God;
|''having sinned'' (expressed by ἁμαρτάνω) makes us ''sinners'' (expressed by ἁμαρτωλός). But even if we havn't sinned, we would be all sinners because of Adam's transgression. So there is a reason to stick to the more literal translation!
|Read Ezekiel 3 and 18. God does not hold anyone accountable for the sins of their father. No one is guilty of the sin of Adam except for Adam. We will be judged according to OUR works, not Adam's works.
|}
IMO, both the KJB and the NIV are doing better than the CBP. And keep in mind that I didn't search for the verses translated worst in the CBP, but that I gave a semi-random selection!

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::ErnestO seems to be correct in a lot of instances. For example, as far as Romans 3:23, the New Testament generally refers to Christians as saints and not sinners. The Apostle Paul, for instance, when writing to various churches refers to believers as saints and not sinners. For more information, please see: http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Important_Issues/are_christians_sinners_or_saints.htm#_Toc499463048 This is another illustration of why it is helpful to know about theology and ANE culture when translating. I don't have time to get into why ANE culture applies to translating the Romans 3:23 verse. Again, I recommend that if the CBP doesn't make significant changes on how its done and step up its game then it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, your translation of John 4:52 as ''So he asked them the precise moment when he began to feel better, and they told him, "His fever broke yesterday, at 1 pm."'' shows your problems with what User:Conservatives describes as the ''ANE culture''. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 13:58, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)

:::::What's the specific problem?
::::::You are applying our standards of precise time measurement to a society which had no idea of this concept. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'd like a response to the issue of how the phrase "so loved the world" now has an environmentalist spin in English.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::If you only read ''half a verse'', you can try to give it an environmentalist spin. But I don't see a problem, as we should look at the context, even when reading a translation. [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 19:05, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I really dont know how and if "so loved the world" has an environmentalist spin in English, but a word about translations. I hope that it is not beating the obvious to death, and I don't mean it as disparagement for any translator. A translation is from one language to another. For a translator of the Bible, this means a translation from Hebrew (and a to lesser extent, Aramaic), and Greek to English of our day. Whether a word or sentence is successfully translated depends upon the knowledge of these languages, and that depends upon the knowledge of the relevant literature. It takes a great deal of knowledge. A discussion of the the success of a translation, it seems to me, must rest upon a discussion of these languages and the text itself. One needs to breath these languages in and out, and the accuracy of a translation may even be scarcely apprehended by the translater himself, let alone by others that do not know the languages and the relevant literature. I say scarcely apprehended by the translater himself because, as in all real life, much of our living is scarcely understood, yet we are living in the reality all the same. Translation is reduplicating life and instilling that reproduction in another, using his own linguistic apparatus.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 16:01, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Here is the original text of those verses to compare with the various translations.

{|class="wikitable"
!Verse
!Original
|-
!John 3:16
|Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς Αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It is in this way that we see that God has loved the world, in the giving of His only Son, that anyone believing in Him not be lost, but have life eternal. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

We do get the term "cosmos" from κόσμον, but I think here it should be translated as "people [of the world]", or "the inhabitants of the world." See [http://concordances.org/greek/2889.htm]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:46, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:yes, "cosmos" is taken from κόσμο'''ς'''. Using brackets in a translation seems to be odd: the language of these verses is simple and straightforward and shouldn't become to convoluted in the translation, IMO.

|-
!John 1:1
| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning, was the Memra. The Memra was in God's presence standing before Him: God was that Memra!

Read "Targum Onkelos" in this article http://www.conservapedia.com/Targum [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!John 14:6
|λέγει αὐτῷ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.

Jesus says to him "I am that pathway, and also the truth and the life. No one can get to the Father except it be by going through me." [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Matthew 28:19
| πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Go, teach all the peoples, performing the Rite of Immersion for their entrance into the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|-
!Romans 3:23
|πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

Everyone has sinned and with respect to the Glory of God, found wanting.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:00, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

|}
--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:07, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

:Professional writers who are exceptional know the language they are writing in very well. Why should translating language be any different when it involves knowing two languages? Plus, with an ancient language from a different society the cultural milieu can be radically different and make things more difficult. Andy's claim that a novice can do it just as well is a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Does the Bible have antipathy towards having more knowledge/experience/skill? No, it does not. Solomon wrote: "Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men." (Proverbs 22:29). Societies that have contempt towards people who are more knowledgeable have caused unnecessary suffering and put their societies in a disadvantageous position when competing against other societies. For example, the Khmer Rouge killed people with glasses. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution was dismissive of knowledge/expertise and failed. Do experts sometimes go beyond their expertise due to pride? For example, make unwarranted claims about matters of opinion? Yes, they do. But this doesn't give one a license to be unskillful/ignorant and pretend we can do just as well as someone who is more skillful. Plus, there is no great demand for Bible's translated by novices. There are untold problems/opportunities in the world. Conservapedians should focus on these problems rather engage in bush league translating when more knowledgeable teams of translators can do a much better job. Here is a lesson from history on the value of expertise: 17,000 United Nations troops did not do as good a job as about 100 highly trained troops from the firm Executive Outcomes as far as fighting murderous rebels. The Bible deserves a team of "[[Naval Special Warfare|SEALS]]" to do translating and not a bunch of people who have a gun thrown in their hand. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:52, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

MatthewQ, I agree with your point that we need the highly trained in some field to further the common good. And there are the highly trained in many fields to do what no single man can do, and should not be expected to do. "Leveling out" so no one has expertise, or feeling that any Joe can do any job is suicidal for the individual and for society, including the Church. And I think that most of the work on the Bible translation project is not translation but putting things into one's own words. Is there value to it? Yes. I think great value. But another viewpoint - I am fairly proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic and its dialects, and Greek, but I readily tell people that there is very little I can get from the Scriptures in their original languages that they can not get from almost all of the English version Bibles that I am familiar with. The experts are needed, and they do their work and we have their English versions. But almost all people get a tremendous boost and depth of understanding from the process of digging into the English version they have, puting things "in their own words", re-presenting it to others for their input, etc. And this is what I see has happened in the process of doing the Conservative Bible translation project. I really don't demand that it be "translation", and it would be better not to claim that, but there has been a value and a blessing in doing the work. Much of what we think we are doing, anyway, is, in reality, doing something else, but that does not denude it of value. One other thing, some of the people involved in the work, are, indeed, based in the original languages. They mnay not be experts, but they are developing. You could say, there are future translaters in our midst. [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 11:25, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

: I'm Catholic and the Church tells us we must understand the original intentions of the authors. From [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html the Vatican's website]:
:: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
:: To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." '''For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.''' (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) [Emphasis added]"
: Out of curiosity, has the Catholic Church expressed any opinion on the Conservative Bible Project? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:20, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy's position seems to be very odd. He recognizes that language and culture are intertwined and one must be knowledgeable about this. However, he only seems to apply that reasoning to the language the text is being translated into (i.e, contemporary English), not the language which it is being translated from (i.e, ancient Hebrew, Greek). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 16:04, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't don't know if the Catholic church has a position on the CBP. I think it would not, at least at this stage. As an aside to the discussion, but relevant to Bible Project endeavor, the Bible is like a deep well to a thirsty man, or an ocean. Contact with it, for the thirsty of course, and those desiring to be clean, is totally beneficial. Even approaching it through linguistics or archaeology produces good in us, as long as we will have faith and an obedient heart. Sometimes I will pass over Scripture when it is in a writing which aims to make a point, as I feel that Scripture, so often, is being "used", whereas when Scripture is just read or "read out", I feel free to give full attention. In our church, there is the custom of reading the Gospel portion assigned by the lectionary. We say, "The Holy Gospel according to so and so". I like it this way rather than telling what chapter and which verse. I'd rather not that a reading from the Gospel be analysed as to correctness of translation, or notes be taken while reading, or even criticized in some way by our penchant for finding fault. So we just "hear" the Word of God, and let it do its work. There is a time and a place for analysis, like in the
Seminary or some other study situation. I think that all dealings with God's word, mixed with our faith and a pure heart, by God's grace, will produce much fruit. I know that no one here disagrees. Just feel compelled to say it [[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:28, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

== A new namespace for the CBP ==

I'd like to make my case - again - for a separate namespace for the the Conservapedia Bible Project. I see only advantages (but for the work which has to be done, of course):

*More option when searching: you could search the CBP for a phrase - or the whole of Conservapedia.
*Bible verses can be used like templates: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:2}}</nowiki> results in: {{:CBP:John 20:2}}
*The translation history of each verse can be looked up - that is interesting in cases like John 1:1, quoted by Aschlafly: ''At times the CBP version has had a stronger, richer translation (check history file) along the lines of "In the beginning was the Living Word, and the Truth was with God, and the Perfection was God."''
*The translation could be read more easily

[[CBP:John 20:2]] is an example how this could be done: at the moment, it is in the main namespace (therefore, you have to add a '':'' when using it as a template).

[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:03, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why not just use the KJV? ==

You stated: "The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by liberal creep in the 400 years since". If the problem is the liberal creep in the last 400 years, then why not just use the KJV as of 1611 (almost 400 years exactly)? If the language is so antiquated that a modern audience can't understand it then use the KJV as your starting point and reword it in a way which can be understood today while still being faithful to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts. If it was there in those documents, it should not be deleted, nor should anything be added regardless of whether it supports a liberal or a conservative position. It doesn't matter who likes what the Bible says. It is what it is.

There's no problem with using more powerful conservative words, so long as they don't alter the meaning of the original text; if it does, then you are substituting your views for the word of God. [[User:PallasAthena2|PallasAthena2]] 12:08, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:Pallas, the Conservative Bible Project was a response to the liberal bias in newer translations of the Bible such as the [[TNIV]]. This project puts the KJV into modern language while taking advantage of new conservative words and insights.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:18, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::Pallas, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is what you say it should be: using modern language untainted by liberal bias to best describe the original text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:16, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Bible Translation ==

I was noticing your Bible translation project. I have a sample up of what I think such a project should look like here:

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/

My concerns are not about liberal bias in wording for the Bible, but that different Hebrew and Greek words are translated differently throughout the Bible. I think they should be translated the same every single time. I use a program called PowerBible CD - it's possible to request a 90-day free trial for it:

http://powerbible.com/

Anyway, I use the Interlinear feature to see each Greek and Hebrew word. I look at how that word is used throughout the entire Bible, and pick an English word choice that will fit its usage throughout the Bible, so that translation will be perfectly consistent each time. I'm still not even through Genesis 1, but every single word translated has been chosen with care so the word can be translated the same every time used from then on, whether 5 times or 500. I also create a page for each Hebrew or Greek word translated noting where it's used, and what the English translation is.

http://bibletranslation.wikia.com/wiki/Genesis_1

The KJV is pretty good, but it did make a few major errors in translating to the English. For example, the Greek word translated virgin in 1 Corinthians 7, parthenos, should've been translated widow as seen from an examination of the chapter and how it's used elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, there are multiple Greek words translated love that have different meanings, and we don't see this from the KJV.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:50, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

Using PowerBible CD, you can right-click on the screen to turn on Interlinear, to see the original Greek/Hebrew words. Clicking on any one brings up the Strong's definitions for that word. You can also see the definitions and word locations at BibleStudyTools:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/raqiya.html

Anyway, from there you can search for that Greek or Hebrew word, and see how it's used throughout the Bible. I've been doing this since 2003, so whenever I'd be uncertain about correct translation, I'd run a search on it to see how it's used all throughout the Bible. This is the method I am using. I basically look at each and every Hebrew word, see where it's used all throughout the Bible, and figure out an English word translation that will fit in every single location it's used in. I want a translation that will be perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 12:57, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

A good online thesaurus for evaluating different word choices can be found at OneLook.com, too. Using an asterisk followed by a colon before a word in the search box looks for all words related to that word:

http://onelook.com/?w=*%3Afill&ls=a

What I like about OneLook is it gives the rarer, lesser-known words that are often overlooked by Thesaruses and Thesaurus websites. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:27, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Interesting! I am curious to see a few examples. I wonder though why you would want to translate an original word each and and every time by the same English word. Isn't the whole essence of translating finding words and phrases that fit most naturally in the target language? Suppose you would want to translate the Spanish sentence ''Mercedes quiere a Juan y quiere casarse con él'': How are you going to translate both instances of ''quiere'' by the same English word? And why would you want to? [[User:Richman|Richman]] 13:56, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:Joshua, your comments are fascinating but I likewise question why each and every use of a word should be translated the same way. The word "get" in English would not be replaced by the same, more formal, word in every context. Sometimes it means "fetch", sometimes "understand", sometimes "receive", etc.

:In John 1:1, I think the repetitive use of "logos" should be translated three different ways to convey its full meaning. In modern English usage, repetition is disfavored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::I do think every word should be translated the same way so people know that what they're seeing is consistent. As I learned to read the Greek and Hebrew, what began to annoy me is that some alleged discrepancies are actually just cases of the same word being translated differently, or different words being translated the same. If there's a version out there that translates everything the same consistently I'm not aware of it. You're right that different English words can have different connotations. But from everything I've seen so far, there isn't a case where a single word needs to be translated differently.

::As for the word logos in John 1:1, it's used as a name and should be consistently translated I think - this is PowerBible's interlinear: "In <en> the beginning <arche> was <en> the Word <logos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> with <pros> God <theos>, and <kai> the Word <logos> was <en> God <theos>."

::Logos is a good example of how the KJV translates the same Greek word differently. It's translated "cause" in Mt. 5:32, "communication" in Mt. 5:37, "sayings" in Mt. 7:24-28, "word" in Mt. 8:8 and 8:16, "words" in Mt. 10:14, "account" in Mt. 12:36, "thing" in Mt. 21:24, "talk" in Mt. 22:15, "reckoneth" in Mt. 25:19, "matter" in Mk. 1:45, "word's sake" in Mk. 4:17, etc.

::As BibleStudyTools says, " King James Word Usage - Total: 330 word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not translated 2, miscellaneous 32"[http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/logos.html]

::I don't think it needs to be translated differently in all those cases. By looking at how it's used throughout the Bible in all 330 cases, a word choice can be found that will fit every instance. Different verses provide clues. For example, Mt. 5:37 shows it has to do with speech or preaching, and can't just mean truth (a word I was considering). It appears to be consistent with "word" or "words" so by going down the list I can check whether such a word choice fits all cases. It appears to fit consistently, though in a few cases it's used as a saying, "ask you one word". (Mt. 21:24, Mk. 11:29, Lk. 20:3) However, word/words appears to fit all 330 cases where logos is used, and I don't see a need for the 40 or so different translation choices the KJV used. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:28, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::While not as diverse as the English language, Strong's Greek lexicon shows 5,624 different words are used in the New Testament. Strong's Hebrew lexicon shows 8,674 different words are used in the Old Testament. Similar words are used with slightly different meanings. I would argue the language still won't sound too rigid or simplistic. It will still be possible to have multiple words with similar meanings in the same sentences. While the English language has around 750,000 words, the average person knows only about 30-50 thousand. The average newspaper uses about 8,000 different words, which is slightly under what the Old Testament uses. Therefore reading level should still be at about the same quality as a newspaper for the Old Testament.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:43, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::The original Hebrew doesn't really show word suffixes. For example, the same Hebrew word, "rabah" is sometimes used twice, right after a previous instance: "Genesis 22:17 That in blessing <barak> I will bless <barak> thee, and in multiplying <rabah> I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> as the stars <kowkab> of the heaven <shamayim>, and as the sand <chowl> which is upon the sea <yam> shore <saphah>; and thy seed <zera`> shall possess <yarash> the gate <sha`ar> of his enemies <'oyeb>;", "Genesis 16:10 ¶ And the angel <mal'ak> of the LORD <Y@hovah> said <'amar> unto her, I will multiply <rabah> thy seed <zera`> exceedingly <rabah>, that it shall not be numbered <caphar> for multitude <rob>."

::I think this is a case of the word increase being used as increasingly. "will increasingly increase your seed" and "I will increase your seed increasingly". It's the same word but with different suffixes. By using suffixes like this where appropriate, I would think the total words used will increase to over 10 or 12 thousand for the Old Testament. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:08, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

:::You post a very interesting analysis and good statistics. Thanks for providing that information. But I still feel that the original meaning is what matters, not consistency in translating a Greek word the same way in very different contexts. "Logos" had a variety of original meanings in Greek, just as "get" does in English today. There is no equivalent for "get" in French, so a good French translation of "get" should vary depending on the context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Still, while Logos was used a number of different ways in the Greek, just as different people today can use words like "faith", "religion", or "theory" to mean very different things, it follows the Bible's authors had a specific meaning for words like Logos, and since God was guiding the process from start to finish the end result should be a consistent process. We should be able to identify what the definition of such a word is, and given the English language's vast complexity, find a suitable word or phrase that fits in all cases.

::::The ability to understand what is being said is strongly emphasized by the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 said tongues were worthless for speaking in church unless interpretation was made, and that without "words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?" Paul further said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::"1 Corinthians 14:6-11 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."

::::My concern is that without such consistency, it's too easy for human errors to come in. People can too easily change the verses to say what they want without such consistency. By making sure the same word or phrase is used consistently throughout it's assured the correct choice in translation is made for better accuracy of what was originally said.

::::While this kind of a translation is more laborious, essentially requiring a careful translation of all 14,000+ words in the Bible, and plugging them in as one goes, it would be incredibly accurate and consistent throughout the entire Bible. Paraphrases and modern wording updates are much easier to accomplish, but do not identify the mistakes made by past translators, and select the correct word choice. Only by this kind of a careful translation can it be certain correct translation is consistently being made. And to the best of my understanding, I don't know of any Bible translation to date that has accomplished this. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 00:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Joshua, I am afraid your rigid adherence to an extreme version of the formal equivalence principle is misguided, as it doesn't render accurate translations. If you know any other languages than English, try to translate the following sentences picking the same foreign word for ''run'' every single time:

:::::*Romney will be ''running'' the marathon
:::::*Romney is ''running'' for president
:::::*Romney ''runs'' a bycicle repair shop.

:::::I think you will fail, because the word ''run'' has a different meaning in different contexts, and it is impossible to find a unique foreign word that would fit in all these different contexts. You see, semantic fields in language A hardly ever overlap entirely with corresponding semantic fields in language B. By the way, an interesting and insightful article about various approaches to Bible translation can be found here: [http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html]. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 08:04, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

::::::Good point about how a single word can carry different connotations. However, the Hebrew language as seen in the Bible only uses 8-9 thousand words as opposed to the 1-2 million of the English language. It would make sense then that every single word choice in Hebrew was carefully made and individually selected for accurate translation by future generations. For the most part I don't see this phenomenon in the Bible where a single word is used different ways in the way that an English counterpart cannot be. If you know of a single word where this is the case I'd like to see it.

::::::Right now I am going by the assumption that such varying connotations will not prove detrimental to a literal translation of the Bible. It's been my experience in looking at the original Hebrew and Greek that this won't prove an issue. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:09, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010. ==

I changed the sentence ''We completed our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'' to ''We completed '''a first draft of''' our translation of the [[New Testament]] on April 23, 2010'': still there are parts of verses missing (see e.g., [[Luke_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter 1|Luke 1:45]]) and the whole translation isn't proofread. So it seems downright dangerous to call it a ''complete translation'' (see [[Revelation 16-22 (Translated)#Chapter 22|Rev 22:19]]). --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:That incomplete verse appears to be an oversight. Are aware of any other examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Textus Receptus vs. Westcott & Hort ==

As far as I can see most of the translations follow the [[Textus Receptus]] (any paraphrasing of the KJB would seem to do so), while there are a few verses obviously translated from [[Westcott & Hort]]. Is there any guideline which telling us which version is preferable? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

:Both sources should be used. Why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

==Corrupt Translation?==

For the record, Mr. Schlafly, I'm not opposed to this project because well...it makes you happy and I hope you enjoy yourself. But I think you're deluding yourself if you're trying to purify a religious text. You're developing a tainted translation/reconstruction, IMHO. It seems you are upset that the Bible is or has become too liberal so you seek to reword things. And not only that edit the Bible (case in point the "forgive them father for they not what they do" and the "Adulteress" story because it doesn't fit your conservative world view. This is where the problem lies and goes beyond a mere re-translation. This is how texts are corrupted. It seems u have an agenda and seek to change the Bible to fit your worldview and not have the Bible shape your worldview instead. It's no different than a liberal seeking to adapt the Bible to fit their world view. Why is this being looked at from a Liberal or Conservative view point, when if you truly want to purify it there you would look it from a purely apolitical point of view? But what do I know i'm just a stupid liberal (by your standards, i consider myself a moderate) This is why i think this is a joke, but have fun, Mr. Schlafly and hope God (if He exists) isn't too angry with you for this idea. --DavidS 21:54, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

:To the contrary, this translation adheres more closely to the original meaning than any of the other contemporary translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

::By approaching it with a political mindset (as opposed to trying to give as accurate and faithful translation as possible) it's doomed to be corrupt. But be that as it may best of luck, Mr. Schlafly. --DavidS 20:34, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:::It's obvious that liberals approach the Bible with a political mindset in their translations (and even a few additions). It takes a political ear to recognize and correct this.

== What god do you really serve? ==

Mr. Schlafly, after reading through sevreal articles on this wiki, it has come to my attemtion that your proclaiming to be a Christian is false. This attempt at rewriting the Bible only proves it. Instead of following our God by preventing projects like this, you follow your own little idol; Conservatism. Instead of taking God's word for what it is, you believe that it is tainted, and the only way to make it clean again is to apply Conservatism (Your definition of Conservatism, at least) to it. Thus, you put higher value on your tainted idealism than the God of the whole Universe. --IJones 15:01 31 May 2013
==Interesting concept==
Is it also a goal of this project to replace archaic Early-Modern English with 21st Century Modern English? If so I could help though I don't want to get involved in the theological side.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:27, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

Fred Phelps

2014-03-23T01:18:06Z

JerryCa:

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Waldron Phelps''' (November 13, 1929 – March 19, 2014) was the [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organization not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behavior. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. This has classified the church as a hate group by various organizations. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the [[Catholic Church]] and [[Episcopal Church]], and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. Phelps is a vehement critic of [[Dick Cheney]]. [http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470&q#] His views are rejected unanimously by [[liberals]] and also by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut".

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is represented by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU).<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref>

Phelps was once an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was an enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for president in 1988,<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> calling Gore "the icon of the conservative faction of the Democratic Party."<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref> During Gore's 1984 campaign for the U.S. Senate, he was against a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and refused to take donations from gay rights organizations. Gore said in an interview with the Nashville ''Tennessean'', "I don't pretend to have an understanding of homosexuality that sustains a discussion of its roots ... but I do not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm."<ref>[http://cache.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bradley_rips_Gore_s_scare_tactics_to_win_gay_votes+.shtml Bradley rips Gore's 'scare tactics' to win gay votes] By Bob Hohler and Michael Crowley, Globe Staff, 2/15/2000, cache.boston.com, retrieved November 26, 2011</ref>

In 1992 Phelps supported [[Bill Clinton]] for president, and later became critical of President Clinton's pandering for gay voters. Phelps led a
demonstration at the 1997 Clinton inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref><ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref>

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against [[homosexuality]] and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the [[Bible]] and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who, in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic priests and church leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Phelps and the Democratic party==
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredGoreFiny.jpg|thumb|240px|right|Rev. [[Fred Phelps]] with future Vice President and [[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Al Gore]] at a Westboro Baptist Church event.]]
Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 and 1997,<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref> Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. He supported [[Al Gore]] in the 1988 primaries. Phelp's support of Al Gore took an irrational U-turn in 1998 when he picketed the funeral of Al Gore's father.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13170/pastor-who-takes-pride-in-hate-traces-the-emotion-to-bible</ref> Phelps has been an extremely vocal critic of [[President George W. Bush]] and former Vice President [[Dick Cheney]], calling Bush "A Bible pervert." Of the Cheney family Phelps said, "They know the iniquity they’ve wrought, but they’re not at all ashamed of it...God hates the Cheneys."<ref>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470#</ref>

== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==

In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Saddam Hussein to visit Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref> When Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006, Phelps said Saddam was in hell for practicing the Muslim faith.

== Phelps and activism ==
[[File:1f3.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]
Phelps announced that he and his group would picket the funeral service of actor [[Heath Ledger]].

In February 2009, Phelps' group announced that they would travel to the [[United Kingdom]] to protest in [[Basingstoke]] against a gay-themed play called [[The Laramie Project]], based on the murder of [[Matthew Shepard]].
However, the British Foreign Secretary [[Jacqui Smith]] later announced on February 19th that they would be barred from entering the country as the group "engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities". Phelps' group later responded with a message on their website GodHatesFags.com stating:

:"You British Bastards will not have Jesus Christ to rule over you, and think you can issue bans and pass laws to remove God’s word from the landscape. You do greatly err, not knowing the power of God; and, you do that against your own interests. It is a great kindness to have God’s prophets in your land. But, you ungrateful brutes despise knowledge. It is too late for the UK. God Hates You! God’s wrath and destruction is all that’s left for you, thanks to Secretary Smith."<ref>http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11226.html</ref>

After the shooting of Arizona U.S. Representative Gabriella Giffords and the death of six people in Tuscon, Arizona in January 2010, Phelps stated in a video that God had sent the shooter, Jared Loughner, to "avenge the nation's sins", and that Westboro planned to protest at the funerals of the six victims.<ref name="giffords">[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40997616/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/arizona-suspect-could-face-death-penalty/#.Ts2iIFmwXf8 Arizona suspect could face death penalty] msnbc.com, Crime & Courts, January 11, 2010, retrieved November 23, 2011.</ref> He said, "Thank God for the violent shooter."<ref name="giffords"/> The Arizona state legislature passed an emergency bill barring protestors from within 300 feet of funerals.<ref>[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-11/us/arizona.funeral.westboro_1_kansas-church-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps?_s=PM:US Arizona enacts funeral protest legislation] cnn.com, January 11, 2010, retrieved November 23, 2011.</ref> Westboro later gave up the idea of protesting at the funeral of Christina Green, the 9-year-old girl who died in the shooting, in exchange for airtime on Phoenix and Tuscon radio stations.<ref>[http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/westboro-baptist-church-wont-picket-christina-green-funeral/ Westboro Baptist Church Won't Picket Christina Green Funeral] Surge Desk, aolnews.com, January 12, 2011, retrieved on November 23, 2011.</ref>

Despite efforts by [[leftist]]s to link Phelps to the Religious Right, Phelps refers to Christian conservatives as "Lukewarm cowards. Modern day Pharisees. People who have gone a whoring after strange gods. Self-righteous hypocrites. They spend more time harrassing people who are preaching the Gospel than anything else, just like the Pharisees did to Jesus." Phelps preaching has much in common with the Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Phelps also says God hates liberals, referring to them as "the modern day Saduccees", and that they are the ultimate evil.<ref>http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html#Right</ref>

===Lawsuits===

*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.

*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax.

==Criticism of Phelps==
Criticism of Phelps has been virtually universal within both the conservative and liberal movements. The Reverend [[Jerry Falwell]] has called Phelps "a first class nut". Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said "Fred Phelps' curious message is hardly Christian, and only fuels societal bigotry toward those who espouse genuine Biblical views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion,"

Phelps was also cited during Canadian deliberations about declaring anti-gay sentiments to be a hate crime.

==Quotes==
Reasons why people call Phelps “hateful”:

*”Bloody-Knife Bombastic Big Mouth Bastard Beast Obama is going to change times and laws; we have the word of God for that fact. He will do this by his charismatic smooth forked tongue, as he’s highly skilled in the art of telling people what they want to hear. The people of this nation are in terror, at God’s hand, afraid for their future, in distress and crisis, and afraid of many unnamed enemies. Germany was stinging and laboring under financial hardship, including punishing reparations from World War I. Hitler tapped into their national pride and need for financial stability to come to power. Also like Germany, this nation has weak legislative and judicial branches. Hitler was able to quickly seize power and strip the German legislative branch of any ability to curtail him. The Congress of doomed America is full of pandering cowards; they will be putty in Beast Obama’s hands, afraid to oppose him because of the “mandate” he has from the raging masses. The cowardly congress members have no stability or moral compass, so they are subject to the whim of the people. They’ll cave like a cheap deck of cards while Obama cleverly and masterfully plays the people like banjos, to get what he wants.” Phelps on beastobama.com launched in early 2009<ref>[http://www.beastobama.com Beast Obama website</ref>

*”God hates America, and those calamities last Tuesday [September 11, 2001] are none other than the wrath of God, smiting fag America... That wasn't any accident. That wasn't any coincidence. There's only America to blame for those tragedies.”
:“How many do you suppose of those hundred (sic) and thirty soldiers died (sic) in the Pentagon last Tuesday were fags and dykes? And how many do you suppose were working in that massively composed building structure called those two World Trade Center buildings, Twin Towers? There were five thousand or ten thousand killed and, counting all those passengers in those airplanes, it's very likely that every last single one of them was a fag or dyke or a fag enabler, and that the minute he died, he split hell wide open, and the way to analyze the situation is that the Lord God Almighty, pursuant to His threatenings and warnings, killed him, looked him in the face, laughed and mocked at each one of them as He cast each one of them into Hell!... God hates America, and God demonstrated that hatred to some modest degree only last Tuesday -- sent in those bombers, those hellacious 767 Boeing bombers, and it was a glorious sight. What you need to do is see in those flames -- those sickening, twisting, burning, life-destroying flames, brightly shining from every television set around the world! You need to see in those flames a little preview of the flames of Hell that are going to soon engulf you, my friend. Burn your soul forever!” September 14, 2001<ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps on Sept. 11 attacks]</ref>

*”Same-sex marriage, by any name, civil union or otherwise, is the ultimate smashed-mouth in-your-face insult to God Almighty, and you think He's going to let England and America and the rest of this evil world get by with it? God Almighty has not joined fags in holy wedlock. God no longer keeps America safe. America is doomed. We're getting the pants beat off of us, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. God is now America's terrorist, that's who Bush is fighting, that's the terrorist that he best be afraid of. You tweaked His nose, you jackass, you tweaked His nose! God put it in your wicked heart to start that war. That's the message we've got at the funerals of these dead soldiers. God duped you into starting a war, so He could punish you. And any preacher preaching it any other way is a lying hell-bound false prophet. So almost eighteen months now and the siege has got people eating their babies, and their small children, and each other! You're gonna eat your babies! God Himself duped Bush into a no-win war, and He did that by the technique of putting a lying spirit in the mouth of all his trusted advisers, to punish America.” Phelps on April 1, 2007<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000764/ Phelps on war, same-sex marriage, gays]</ref>

*”The Lord sent a world-class whopper of a massacre to Virginia Tech, killing thirty-three, drawing headlines like 'Shocked!', 'Horrified!', 'The worst massacre in US history!'. Well, we wish you were thirty-three thousand killed, but we are thankful to our Father for thirty-three.” Phelps on April 23, 2007<ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps on Virginia Tech massacre]</ref>

*”Canada is a filthy country run by fags, which has Draconian laws making it a crime to preach the Gospel there. All of these cowardly kissy-poo preachers who telecast their milquetoast sermons into Canada have to edit out every single word critical of fags -- snip, snip, snip -- or the fag officials of Canada will arrest and criminally prosecute the Canadian affiliates, and shut down their stations! There's no freedom of speech in Canada. There's no freedom of religion in Canada. It is against the law to read the Bible in Canada.... Our church has had a lot of bad dealings with those demon-possessed Canadians! A big Canadian flag flies at our church upside-down, the international symbol of distress. We fly it day and night, to educate and warn people about the fagi-nazi regime just to the north of us. Canadians are afraid of their tyrannical fag-run government. You can determine for yourself about Canada, and keep as far away from them as you can.” Phelps on July 31, 2008<ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps on Canada]</ref>

*”We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message...The same majoritarian sodomite tyranny that now guides the Clinton administration's repressive policies toward Gospel preaching on America's streets, is apparently responsible — at least in part — for the merciless slaughter by starvation of 400 innocent Iraqi babies each day in your country. If our government and laws will allow it, and at the invitation of your government, we would like to send a delegation from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, to preach the Gospel on the streets of Baghdad for one week in the near future.” Phelps’ November 30, 1997 letter to Saddam Hussein.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/print.asp Phelps’ letter to Saddam Hussein]</ref>

*”In our experience, no modern country is more repressive of human rights than the U.S.A. The vaunted First Amendment is nothing but empty words on paper...we will journey to China at our expense, and tell our story of modern American repression of human rights, upon invitation.” Fred Phelps, demanding permission to picket in the People's Republic of China, February 26, 1997.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/print.asp Phelps on China, U.S.A. and human rights]</ref>

*”Mr. Rogers gave aid and comfort to homosexuals. He was a man who preached tolerance of all sorts of people in ways that directly contradicted the Bible. His syrupy teachings led millions astray. He was a wuss and he was an enabler of wusses.” Phelps on March 2003.<ref>[http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20030307tony107col2p2.asp Phelps on Mr. Rogers]</ref>

*”You are a Bible pervert, [President George W.] Bush! And I knew it, the minute you hired that fag Scott Evertz to run your White House and told Rumsfeld to hire that fag [Stephen] Herbits, to screen all the applicants for employment to the Pentagon.” Phelps on September 14, 2001 <ref>[http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html Phelps’ tirade toward President Bush]</ref>.

*”Whatever righteous cause the Jewish victims of the 1930s-40s Nazi Holocaust had, (probably miniscule, compared to the Jewish Holocausts against Middle Passage Blacks, African Americans and Christians -- including the bloody persecution of Westboro Baptist Church by Topeka Jews in the 1990s), has been drowned in sodomite semen. American taxpayers are financing this unholy monument to Jewish mendacity and greed and to filthy fag lust…Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany…just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A. … The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke…And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them…Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda…The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law.” WBC news release, December 26, 1996<ref>[http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/WBC-on-Jews.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC Phelps on Jewish people]</ref>

*Fred Phelps believes that [[Barack Obama]] is the Antichrist. According to Phelps, we are living in the end of days and Obama will form an Unholy Trinity with the [[Catholic Church]] and [[Satan]].<ref>[http://www.beastobama.com/unholytrinity/index.html Phelps on the Antichrist and Unholy Trinity]</ref>

== Outside links ==
*[http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU The Most Hated Family In America]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8194338250744686470# Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8682089528957352638&ei=YB-PSa6HCYbi2gKtgPnCCw&q=fred+phelps+jerry+falwell&hl=en Phelps denouncing] [[Jerry Falwell]] after his death.

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

[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Lunatics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

2014-03-23T01:15:42Z

JerryCa:

==Pro Tip==
It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled ''Bestiality and Britain'' (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[http://www.dogwalkersmelbourne.com.au/articles-dog-walking-pet-sitting/54-global-real-world-dog-ownership-versus-online-dog-searches-4.html][http://petshops.about.com/od/PetStoreOperations/a/World-Pet-Market-Trends.htm] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|huge amount of evidence for his existence.]] (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) - see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, the author of the article is using the British study to estimate the amount of bestiality of Sweden. Why wouldn't the author mention that the British vet study was done outside of Britain in terms of dogs/cats if that were the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== some suggested improvements ==

I have taken the liberty of suggesting some improvements. How do you all like these edits:

'''Removed picture of Boteach as he has nothing to do with bestiality'''

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

<s>In 2011, in an article entitled ''Godless Britain'' Shmuley Boteach reported in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'':</s>
{{cquote|<s>Britain today has become one of the most godless societies on earth. Its principle religious exports today are thinkers who despise religion. From Richard Dawkins, who has compared religion to child abuse, to my friend Christopher Hitchens, who titled his 2007 book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," the British have cornered the market on being anti-God, at least the Christian and Jewish varieties.

While 92% of Americans believe in God, only 35% in Britain do and 43% say they have no religion, according to Britain's National Centre for Social Research. The number of people who affiliate themselves with the Church of England was 23% of the population in 2009 from 40% in 1983. In truth though, if Britain's Christian tradition is dying out, the leaders of the faith have only themselves to blame, for perpetuating the country's highly centralized religious structure.</s>[1]}} '''(nothing whatever to do with Bestiality)'''

<s>On April 26, 2001, in an article entitled ''Swedes have more and more animal sex'' the Swedish news website Nettavision reported:</s>
{{cquote|<s>No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault.</s>[2]}} '''Unfortunately this has nothing to do with Britain'''

See also:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

----
;Bible on bestiality and study on bestiality

<s>The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).</s> '''Nothing to do with Britain'''

<s>A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[3] The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.</s>[4] 
'''Nothing to do with Britain'''
{{unsigned|DamianJohn}}

== This page should be deleted... ==

There is no evidence whatsoever. Whom is the British study referring to? I would guess since the article is about Sweden it is referring to Swedes, but since the distinction isn't made, you can't know whom the study is referring to. In light of this, there is no link b/w Brits and bestiality presented. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 12:14, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[http://www.dogwalkersmelbourne.com.au/articles-dog-walking-pet-sitting/54-global-real-world-dog-ownership-versus-online-dog-searches-4.html][http://petshops.about.com/od/PetStoreOperations/a/World-Pet-Market-Trends.htm] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the [[Christian apologetics|huge amount of evidence for his existence.]] (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::The study WAS conducted in the UK, but it only dealt with abused animals - deliberate injuries - not all injured animals. 6% of ABUSE cases were SUSPECTED to be sexual in nature. The total was 28 cases in one year. More details [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb02468.x/abstract here]. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Probably should be mentioned in article ==

Bestiality is illegal in the United Kingdom. See [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3675057.stm here]. Did you know that only 32 states here in America have laws banning bestiality? It appears that many have banned it under animal rights codes, rather than because of morality. Also, [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631220800Sample/Reis9780631220800.pdf here's] an interesting paper about bestiality in early America. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I am guessing that illegality affects rates of bestiality, but [[Washington state and bestiality]] shows that immoral people do ignore laws. The war on drugs in the United States has not been very effective for example because laws and attempted enforcement of those laws often can only do so much. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== And it's back... ==

So you're saying b/c ONE brit had sex with an animal, ONE artist painted a painting (and a few were dumb enough to buy it), and they showed a documentary on the subject, the whole nation is one big animal sodomizing dystopia? This is ridiculous and offensive. User:Conservative, you should at the very least lift the protection or move this to essays as this in no way represents any version of reality except your own. [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 09:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'm British, and my sex life has certainly gone to the dogs. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:14, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Prevalence of bestiality in atheists and theists ==

I do wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that atheists are more likely to commit bestiality than Christians. [http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2011/04/priest-accused-of-bestiality.html THIS] suggests that it's not entirely unknown for Christian clergy to get a little bit too fond of man's best friend. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:31, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:And [http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news13/2005_02_07_DallasMorningNews_RockwallPriest_William_Richard_2.htm here] is another example. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:37, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::[http://www.todaysthv.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=175199 THIS] case deals with the founder of a bible college, so probably not an atheist. The article talks about child pornography but other sources suggest that bestiality porn was also involved. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:44, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::And a case from [http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Horror-upon-horror-that-unfolded.5247628.jp Britain], although not Godless Britain - a regular churchgoer jailed for child molesting and owning bestiality porn. --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:48, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::A church deacon from Virginia gets [http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/chesapeake-man-gets-22-years-child-sex-solicitation-conviction 22 years in jail] for possession of child and bestiality porn... --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:51, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::GuntheR, I expect with the paltry evidence you have offered so far, you are probably going to be wondering for a long time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::What evidence have YOU offered that bestiality is more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? That would be none, right? --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 18:58, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Also, speaking as a conservative Bible believing Protestant, I cannot say I am very impressed with your paltry evidence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Where is YOUR evidence for bestiality being more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? I don't believe you've actually produced any, have you? --[[User:GuntheR|GuntheR]] 19:07, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== So Conservative... ==

If you are going to treat this article as your own personal essay, shouldn't it be labeled as such? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 12:35, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

This is a disgusting article,--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 12:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
:No, it's a dumb article. Basic fact checking reveals that the opening claim is false, and that the author was a fool to rely on a single secondary source. The 2001 study '''does not''' show a 5% prevalence of sexual assault for '''all''' dogs and cats requiring veterinary treatment. Rather, it shows a 6% prevalence (28 cases) among '''a very small subset''' of dogs and cats requiring treatment, namely those presenting with non-accidental injuries (448 animals in total). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb02468.x/abstract]

:I note with sadness that this was pointed out to the author 18 months ago. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 21:37, 27 May 2013 (EDT
::Givemeliberty, I cited a monthly, peer-reviewed veterinary journal and leading newspapers. It is no mere essay my evolutionist friend! :) I thought liberals loved peer reviewed material from the mainstream scientific community and leading newspaper citations. JohanZ, thank you for providing the journal citation. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:38, 26 August 2013 (EDT)
==Consider changing the title==
To "Bestiality and The United Kingdom"

Sweden

2014-01-16T09:09:23Z

JerryCa: fixed factual error

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|map2 =Sweden location.png
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is [[Fredrik Reinfeldt]], leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and [[orthography]]. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

==== Religion and Sweden ====

Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reports that 46 - 85% of Swedes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> Sweden also has the 3rd highest rate of belief in evolution as far as [[Western World]] nations (see: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds]</ref>

===== Christianity in Sweden =====

[[File:Sweden Orberga church Vadstena.jpg|thumb|300px|Orberga church Vadstena.]]
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.
Regardless of the church membership polls suggest that 46-85% of Swedes to be either agnostics, atheists or non-believers of gods.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

In the 1960s the government decided to reduce education about Christianity in [[public school]]s.

In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Abortion in Sweden==
Sweden provides taxpayer-subsidized, no-questions-asked [[abortion]]s during the first 18 weeks of [[pregnancy]]. During the following four weeks, [[women]] are required to get special permission for abortions. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and it is possible that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition.

==Government==
[[File:Gripsholm Castle Mariefred Sweden.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Gripsholm Castle.]]
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman law, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden.jpg|thumb|King Carl XVI Gustaf.]]
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg|thumb|left|380px|The Royal Official Castle, [[Stockholm]].]]
The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored [[national liberation movement]]s that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
[[File:Sweden Slottsteater chateau theatre.jpg|thumb|270px|Drottningholm, Slottsteater (chateau theatre).]]
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
[[File:Lund Sweden.jpg|thumb|Church Altar in Lund.]]
See [[History of Sweden]]
{{Clear}}
==Some Notable Swedes==
[[File:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer 1846.jpg|thumb|323px|Idunn and Bragi by Nils Blommer, 1846.]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]], inventor of dynamite; founded the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus and Agnetha Fältskog. The forth member, Anni-Frid Lyngstad is from Norway.
* Dag Hammarskjöld, UN leader
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme, prime minister
* Ingemar Bergman, actress
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* [[Saint Bridget of Sweden|Saint Birgitta]] (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, mystic and philosopher
* Peter Stormare, actor

== Sexual immoraiity and Sweden ==
[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|280px|right|Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> In recent years Sweden appears to have faced a growing problem with [[bestiality]].<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/50/5050406 ''Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden'']</ref><ref>[http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece Swedes have more and more animal sex]</ref> ]]

''See also:'' [[Sexual immorality and Sweden]] and [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

On May 5, 2011 the Swedish news website ''The Local'' reported in an article entitled ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'':
{{cquote|[[Gonorrhea|Gonorrhoea]] and [[syphilis]] are making a comeback in Sweden, with the number of reported cases among young women soaring by nearly 60 percent in 2010.

According to new statistics from the Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control (Smittskyddsinstitutet), there was a 38 percent rise in reported cases of the two diseases among Swedes in general.

Worst hit, however, are young women between 15 and 24, where the number of cases increased by 57 percent.<ref>http://www.thelocal.se/33616/20110506/ ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'']</ref>}}

=== Libertine Sweden ===

''See also:'' [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

In November 0f 2008, the [[UK]] newspaper ''The Times'' reported:
{{cquote|Sweden, one of the world's most sexually tolerant societies, is in the throes of a strange, emotionally charged debate about the last taboo: bestiality.

The unmasking this week of an animal sex network by the Stockholm newspaper Expressen has again highlighted the issue. Members of parliament are urging a tightening of the laws (bestiality was decriminalised along with homosexuality in 1944) but the government is resisting the pressure...

Sweden has had a pioneering approach towards sex, at least since the 1960s when critically acclaimed films such as I am Curious Yellow depicted the society's free-wheeling attitudes. The country was one of the first to shed the stigma of single motherhood and, while Swedes talk less about sexual matters nowadays than 30 years ago, they are still pushing back the boundaries... Legal limits are set mainly on the commercial exploitation of sex: thus, while prostitution is technically legal, customers are seen as offenders who exploit and abuse women. Cameras have been set up near the entrances of brothels and clients leaving the premises can be fined on the spot.

But bestiality and the whole seedy sub-culture surrounding it is straining Swedish tolerance to bursting point. Religious Swedes say it violates a fundamental taboo: a passage from Leviticus 18 states: “And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." In the [[Middle Ages]], men were typically burned to death for having sex with animals. Most countries nowadays either outlaw the practice entirely (most states in the US) or prosecute penetrative sex with animals (Britain). Sweden, though, has not taken a religion-based stance. Rather, it seems to accept the idea that sex with animals can be in some way consensual. If it causes injury to the animal it can be prosecuted, although in practice only two out of the 115 cases registered have ever been investigated.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality - The Times - November 12, 2008]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

==Further reading==
* ''Sweden'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by DK Publishing (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0756609135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Sweden'' ed. by Danforth Prince (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Sweden-Complete-Danforth-Prince/dp/0470432144/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* '' Lonely Planet Sweden'' ed. by Carolyn Bain and Graeme Cornwallis (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Sweden-Carolyn-Bain/dp/1740592271/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-25 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Sweden'' ed. by James Proctor and Neil Roland (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Sweden-Travel-Guides/dp/1843536854/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
*---
* Hancock, M. Donald ''Politics in Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Europe-Introduction-Kingdom-Germany/dp/1933116455/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm source for much of this article; not copyright]
==References==
<references />

{{European Union}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:European History]]

Sweden

2014-01-16T09:00:27Z

JerryCa: As his age was not updated in 4 years probably best ro remove it altogether

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|map2 =Sweden location.png
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is [[Fredrik Reinfeldt]], leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and [[orthography]]. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

==== Religion and Sweden ====

Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reports that 46 - 85% of Swedes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> Sweden also has the 3rd highest rate of belief in evolution as far as [[Western World]] nations (see: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds]</ref>

===== Christianity in Sweden =====

[[File:Sweden Orberga church Vadstena.jpg|thumb|300px|Orberga church Vadstena.]]
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.
Regardless of the church membership polls suggest that 46-85% of Swedes to be either agnostics, atheists or non-believers of gods.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

In the 1960s the government decided to reduce education about Christianity in [[public school]]s.

In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Abortion in Sweden==
Sweden provides taxpayer-subsidized, no-questions-asked [[abortion]]s during the first 18 weeks of [[pregnancy]]. During the following four weeks, [[women]] are required to get special permission for abortions. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and it is possible that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition.

==Government==
[[File:Gripsholm Castle Mariefred Sweden.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Gripsholm Castle.]]
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman law, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden.jpg|thumb|King Carl XVI Gustaf.]]
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg|thumb|left|380px|The Royal Official Castle, [[Stockholm]].]]
The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored [[national liberation movement]]s that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
[[File:Sweden Slottsteater chateau theatre.jpg|thumb|270px|Drottningholm, Slottsteater (chateau theatre).]]
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
[[File:Lund Sweden.jpg|thumb|Church Altar in Lund.]]
See [[History of Sweden]]
{{Clear}}
==Some Notable Swedes==
[[File:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer 1846.jpg|thumb|323px|Idunn and Bragi by Nils Blommer, 1846.]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]], inventor of dynamite; founded the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog.
* Dag Hammarskjöld, UN leader
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme, prime minister
* Ingemar Bergman, actress
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* [[Saint Bridget of Sweden|Saint Birgitta]] (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, mystic and philosopher
* Peter Stormare, actor

== Sexual immoraiity and Sweden ==
[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|280px|right|Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> In recent years Sweden appears to have faced a growing problem with [[bestiality]].<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/50/5050406 ''Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden'']</ref><ref>[http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece Swedes have more and more animal sex]</ref> ]]

''See also:'' [[Sexual immorality and Sweden]] and [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

On May 5, 2011 the Swedish news website ''The Local'' reported in an article entitled ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'':
{{cquote|[[Gonorrhea|Gonorrhoea]] and [[syphilis]] are making a comeback in Sweden, with the number of reported cases among young women soaring by nearly 60 percent in 2010.

According to new statistics from the Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control (Smittskyddsinstitutet), there was a 38 percent rise in reported cases of the two diseases among Swedes in general.

Worst hit, however, are young women between 15 and 24, where the number of cases increased by 57 percent.<ref>http://www.thelocal.se/33616/20110506/ ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'']</ref>}}

=== Libertine Sweden ===

''See also:'' [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

In November 0f 2008, the [[UK]] newspaper ''The Times'' reported:
{{cquote|Sweden, one of the world's most sexually tolerant societies, is in the throes of a strange, emotionally charged debate about the last taboo: bestiality.

The unmasking this week of an animal sex network by the Stockholm newspaper Expressen has again highlighted the issue. Members of parliament are urging a tightening of the laws (bestiality was decriminalised along with homosexuality in 1944) but the government is resisting the pressure...

Sweden has had a pioneering approach towards sex, at least since the 1960s when critically acclaimed films such as I am Curious Yellow depicted the society's free-wheeling attitudes. The country was one of the first to shed the stigma of single motherhood and, while Swedes talk less about sexual matters nowadays than 30 years ago, they are still pushing back the boundaries... Legal limits are set mainly on the commercial exploitation of sex: thus, while prostitution is technically legal, customers are seen as offenders who exploit and abuse women. Cameras have been set up near the entrances of brothels and clients leaving the premises can be fined on the spot.

But bestiality and the whole seedy sub-culture surrounding it is straining Swedish tolerance to bursting point. Religious Swedes say it violates a fundamental taboo: a passage from Leviticus 18 states: “And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." In the [[Middle Ages]], men were typically burned to death for having sex with animals. Most countries nowadays either outlaw the practice entirely (most states in the US) or prosecute penetrative sex with animals (Britain). Sweden, though, has not taken a religion-based stance. Rather, it seems to accept the idea that sex with animals can be in some way consensual. If it causes injury to the animal it can be prosecuted, although in practice only two out of the 115 cases registered have ever been investigated.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality - The Times - November 12, 2008]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

==Further reading==
* ''Sweden'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by DK Publishing (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0756609135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Sweden'' ed. by Danforth Prince (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Sweden-Complete-Danforth-Prince/dp/0470432144/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* '' Lonely Planet Sweden'' ed. by Carolyn Bain and Graeme Cornwallis (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Sweden-Carolyn-Bain/dp/1740592271/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-25 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Sweden'' ed. by James Proctor and Neil Roland (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Sweden-Travel-Guides/dp/1843536854/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
*---
* Hancock, M. Donald ''Politics in Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Europe-Introduction-Kingdom-Germany/dp/1933116455/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm source for much of this article; not copyright]
==References==
<references />

{{European Union}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:European History]]

Sweden

2014-01-16T08:57:26Z

JerryCa:

{{Country
|name =''Konungariket Sverige''
|map =Sweden rel96.jpg
|map2 =Sweden location.png
|flag =Flag of Sweden.png
|arms =Arms of Sweden.png
|capital =Stockholm
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =Swedish
|king =Carl XVI Gustaf
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Fredrik Reinfeldt
|pm-raw =
|area =173,732 sq mi
|pop =9,142,8174 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$291 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$32,200 (2006)
|currency =Swedish krona
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, with an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 48 year old [[Fredrik Reinfeldt]], leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI Gustaf]] is the current king.

==People==
Sweden has one of the world's highest life expectancies. The country counts at least 17,000 Sami among its population. About one-fifth of Sweden's population are immigrants or have at least one foreign-born parent. The largest immigrant groups are from Finland, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Norway, Denmark, and Poland. This reflects Nordic immigration, earlier periods of labor immigration, and later decades of refugee and family immigration.

Swedish is a Germanic language related to Danish and Norwegian but different in pronunciation and [[orthography]]. English is by far the leading foreign language, particularly among students and those under age 50.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-6 years old in a public day-care facility. From ages 7-16, children attend compulsory comprehensive school. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 of those days reserved specifically for the father.
*Population (November 2007): 9,179,731.
*Annual population growth rate (2007): 0.76%.
*Ethnic groups: Indigenous Swedes, ethnic Finns, ethnic Sami.
*Immigrants: Total: 491,996 (20% of total population); Finns, Iraqis, ex-Yugoslavia nationals, Iranians, Norwegians, Danes, Greeks, and Turks.
*Religions: Lutheran (87%), Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2006)--2.80/1,000. Life expectancy--men 78.70 years, women 82.94 years.
*Work force (4.82 million, 2007 est.): Services--70.7%; industry--28.2%; agriculture--1.1%. Unemployment (2007)--5.2%.
*Public holidays (2008): January 1 (New Year's Day); January 6 (Epiphany); March 21 (Good Friday); March 22 (Easter); March 23 (Easter Sunday); March 24 (Easter Monday); May 1 (May Day and Ascension Day); May 11 (Whit Sunday); June 6 (National Day); June 21 (Midsummer Holiday); November 1 (All Saints' Day); December 25 (Christmas); December 26 (Boxing Day).

The eve of a holiday is as important--or more so--than the holiday itself. Most Swedes have the day off, including those working in the civil service, banks, public transport, hospitals, shops, and the media. Others have at least a half-day. This applies especially to Midsummer's Eve, All Saints' Day Eve, and Christmas Eve. The eve of May Day is called Valborg Eve or St Walpurgis. When a holiday falls on a Thursday many Swedes have the following Friday off in addition. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday it is not taken on the following Monday.

==== Religion and Sweden ====

Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reports that 46 - 85% of Swedes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> Sweden also has the 3rd highest rate of belief in evolution as far as [[Western World]] nations (see: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds]</ref>

===== Christianity in Sweden =====

[[File:Sweden Orberga church Vadstena.jpg|thumb|300px|Orberga church Vadstena.]]
80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). The number is so high because children born to members of the church automatically become lifelong members. This church is somewhat unique because it has decided to agree to perform a blessing ceremony for [[homosexuality|homosexuals]] engaging in registered partnership (full marriage for same sex couples is a matter of debate in Sweden). This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against [[abortion]]s, [[divorce]], and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches.
Regardless of the church membership polls suggest that 46-85% of Swedes to be either agnostics, atheists or non-believers of gods.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref>

In the 1960s the government decided to reduce education about Christianity in [[public school]]s.

In 2000, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Pentecostal preacher, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month, but then acquitted by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

==Abortion in Sweden==
Sweden provides taxpayer-subsidized, no-questions-asked [[abortion]]s during the first 18 weeks of [[pregnancy]]. During the following four weeks, [[women]] are required to get special permission for abortions. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and it is possible that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition.

==Government==
[[File:Gripsholm Castle Mariefred Sweden.jpg|thumb|280px|left|Gripsholm Castle.]]
Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient tradition. The Swedish parliament (Riksdag) stems from tribal courts (Ting) and the election of kings in the Viking age. It became a permanent institution in the 15th century. Sweden's government is a limited constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Executive authority is vested in the cabinet, which consists of a prime minister and 22 ministers who run the government departments. The present Alliance for Sweden government, led by Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, came to power in September 2006. King Carl XVI Gustaf (Bernadotte) ascended to the throne on September 15, 1973. His authority is formal, symbolic, and representational. The unicameral Riksdag has 349 members, popularly elected every 4 years, and is in session generally from September through mid-June.

Sweden has three levels of government: national, regional, and local. In addition, there is the European level which has acquired increasing importance following Sweden's entry into the EU. At parliamentary elections and municipal and county council elections held every four years, voters elect those who are to decide how Sweden is governed and administered.

Sweden is divided into 18 counties (lan), 18 county councils (landsting), 290 municipalities (kommuner), and 2 semi-independent regions. Each county (lan) is headed by a governor, who is appointed by the central government. The counties coordinate administration with national political goals for the county. The county council (landsting) is a regional government that is popularly elected with particular responsibility for health and medical care. The municipalities are local governments that deal with issues such as education, public transportation and social welfare. Elected municipal councils are headed by executive committees roughly analogous to the boards of commissioners found in some U.S. cities.

Swedish law, drawing on Germanic and Roman law, is neither as codified as in France and other countries influenced by the Napoleonic Code, nor as dependent on judicial practice and precedents as in the United States. Legislative and judicial institutions include, in addition to the Riksdag, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labor Court, the Law Council, District Courts and Courts of Appeal, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the parliamentary ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice who oversee the application of laws with particular attention to abuses of authority.

At the national level, the Swedish people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative powers. Proposals for new laws are presented by the government which also implements decisions taken by the Riksdag. The government is assisted in its work by the government offices, comprising a number of ministries, and some 300 central government agencies and public administrations.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden.jpg|thumb|King Carl XVI Gustaf.]]
*Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--Fredrik Reinfeldt
*Minister for Finance--Anders Borg
*Minister for the Environment--Andreas Carlgren
*Minister for Justice--Beatrice Ask
*Minister for Foreign Affairs--Carl Bildt
*Minister for EU Affairs--Cecilia Malmstrom
*Minister for Social Security--Cristina Husmark Pehrsson
*Minister for Agriculture--Eskil Erlandsson
*Minister for International Development Co-operation--Gunilla Carlsson
*Minister for Health and Social Affairs--Goran Hagglund
*Minister for Higher Education and Research--Lars Leijonborg
*Minister for Education--Jan Bjorklund
*Minister for Culture--Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
*Minister for Elderly Care and Public Health--Maria Larsson
*Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets--Mats Odell
*Minister for Enterprise and Energy--Maud Olofsson
*Minister for Defense--Sten Tolgfors
*Minister for Integration and Gender Equality--Nyamko Sabuni
*Minister for Trade--Ewa Bjorling
*Minister for Employment--Sven Otto Littorin
*Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy--Tobias Billstrom
*Minister for Infrastructure--Asa Torstensson
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Anders Liden

===Political Conditions===
Ordinary general elections to the Swedish parliament are held every fourth year on the third Sunday in September. County council and municipal council elections take place at the same time. The last elections were held in September 2006. There is a barrier rule intended to prevent very small parties from gaining representation in the parliament. A party must thus receive at least 4% of the votes in the entire country or 12% in a single electoral district to qualify for any seats.

Elections to the Riksdag were held on September 17, 2006. The Alliance for Sweden (a coalition of four center-right parties--the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democrat, and the Center Party) won 178 of the 349 seats, securing Moderate Fredrik Reinfeldt the position of Prime Minister. The 2006 election results for Sweden's major parties were as follows: the Social Democratic Party (34.99%; 130 seats), the Moderate Party (26.23%; 97 seats), the Center Party (7.88%; 29 seats), the Liberal Party (7.54%; 28 seats), the Christian Democrats (6.59%; 24 seats), the Left Party (5.85%; 22 seats), and the Green Party (5.24%; 19 seats).
[[File:Estocolmo The Royal Official Castle.jpg|thumb|left|380px|The Royal Official Castle, [[Stockholm]].]]
The Social Democratic Party has a base of blue-collar workers and public sector employees. It derives much of its power from strong links with the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), which represents blue-collar workers. The party program combines a commitment to social welfare programs and government direction of the economy. The Social Democratic Party has led the government for 65 of the 76 years since 1932; the 2006 election ended its most recent term of 12 consecutive years in office.

The Moderate Party emphasizes personal freedom, free enterprise, and reduction of the public-sector growth rate, while still supporting most of the social benefits introduced since the 1930s. The party also supports a strong defense and Sweden's membership in the European Union (EU). Its voter base is urban business people and professionals, but the party also attracts young voters, main-street shop owners, and, to some extent, blue-collar workers. Moderate Party Leader Reinfeldt followed an election strategy of remodeling his party as "New Moderates," moving away from the party's right-wing, upper-class roots to appeal to a large middle ground of voters, and successfully winning over many who had until then supported the SDP, as well as others who had previously voted for the smaller, non-socialist parties. Reinfeldt was instrumental in uniting the previously divided four parties of the center-right opposition. The Alliance offered alternative policies focusing on job creation that persuaded the voters.

The Center Party maintains close ties to rural Sweden. The main priorities of the party include providing a sound economic climate for business and job creation, climate change and environmental concerns (including nuclear power), and health and welfare issues.

The Left Party, formerly the Communist Party, focuses on feminist issues, employment in the public sector, and the environment. It opposes privatization, cuts in public expenditure, Swedish participation in NATO activities, and EU membership. Its voter base consists mainly of young people, public sector employees, feminists, journalists, and former social democrats.

The Christian Democrat Party is conservative and value-oriented. Its voter base is primarily among members of conservative churches and rural populations. Christian Democrats seek government support for families and better ethical practices to improve care for the elderly.

The Liberal Party's platform is "social responsibility without socialism," which includes a commitment to a free-market economy combined with comprehensive Swedish social welfare programs. Foreign aid, education and women's equality also are popular issues. The Liberal Party base is mainly centered in educated middle-class voters.

The Green Party is a leftist environmentalist party that attracts young people. The Greens support a phasing-out of nuclear energy in Sweden and hope to replace it with alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources.

The next Swedish election for parliament is scheduled to be held in 2010. In 2009 Sweden will vote for its representatives to the European Parliament.

===Foreign Relations===
Swedish foreign policy is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain neutral in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The new security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security. The Swedish Government devotes particular attention to issues of disarmament, arms control, and nuclear nonproliferation and has contributed importantly to UN and other international peacekeeping efforts, including the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in the Balkans (KFOR). Sweden also contributes to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and assumed leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar e-Sharif in March 2006.

Sweden participates actively in the United Nations and its specialized and related agencies, including the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Labor Organization (ILO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (USESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and others including as a member of the Security Council in 1997-98. In January 1995, Sweden became a full member of the European Union after a referendum in late 1994 indicated that 52.3% of participants wanted to join. Sweden became a member in part due to its increasing isolation outside the economic framework of the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) and participates in numerous international peacekeeping operations under UN auspices. Sweden also cooperates closely with its Nordic neighbors, formally in economic and social matters through the Nordic Council of Ministers and informally in political matters through direct consultation.

Swedish governments do not consider that nonalignment precludes taking outspoken positions in international affairs. Government leaders have favored [[national liberation movement]]s that enjoy broad support among developing world countries, with notable attention to Africa. During the Cold War, Sweden was suspicious of the superpowers, which it saw as making decisions affecting small countries without always consulting those countries. With the end of the Cold War, that suspicion has lessened somewhat, although Sweden still chooses to remain nonaligned.

== Economy ==
[[File:Sweden Slottsteater chateau theatre.jpg|thumb|270px|Drottningholm, Slottsteater (chateau theatre).]]
Sweden is a highly industrialized country. Agriculture, once accounting for nearly all of Sweden's economy, now employs less than 2% of the labor force. Extensive forests, rich iron ore deposits, and hydroelectric power are the natural resources which, through the application of technology and efficient organization, have enabled Sweden to become a leading producing and exporting nation.

The Swedish economic picture has brightened significantly since the severe recession in the early 1990s. Growth has been strong in recent years, with an annual average GDP growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2000-2004 and 2.7% in 2005. The inflation rate was low in 2006, with an annual average inflation rate of about 1.5%, but unemployment remains a stubborn problem. The inflation rate rose to 3.5% in December 2007. The unemployment rate held steady in recent years at about 5% and in 2005 reached 7.8%. Unemployment in 2007 reached 5.2%. Since the mid-1990s, Sweden's export sector has grown significantly as the information technology (IT) industry, telecommunications, and services have overtaken traditional industries such as steel, paper, and pulp. The overall current-account surplus has traditionally been much smaller than the merchandise trade balance, as Sweden has generally run a deficit on trade in services, net income flows, and unrequited transfers. However, since 2003 this has not been the case, as the services balance swung into surplus in 2003 and improved further in 2004 and 2005. In addition, the income account also swung from deficit into surplus in 2003, before slipping back to register small deficits in 2004 and 2005. Although the transfers balance remained in deficit, mainly as a result of Sweden's contributions to the EU budget, the overall current-account surplus was larger than the trade surplus in 2003-05. Most categories of services exports produced an improvement over this period, but the biggest contribution came from business services exports, followed by transportation and royalties and license fees.

During 2005 real GDP rose by 2.5%, 3.4% in 2006, and 2.9% (est.) in 2007. The government budget improved dramatically from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2006. The new, strict budget process with spending ceilings set by parliament, and a constitutional change to an independent Central Bank, have greatly improved policy credibility. This can be seen in the long-term interest rate margin versus the Euro, which is negligible. From the perspective of longer-term fiscal sustainability, the long-awaited reform of old-age pensions entered into force in 1999. This entails a far more robust system vis-à-vis adverse demographic and economic trends, which should keep the ratio of total pension disbursements to the aggregate wage bill close to 20% in the decades ahead. Taken together, both fiscal consolidation and pension reform have brought public finances back on a sustainable footing. Gross public debt, which jumped from 43% of GDP in 1990 to 78% in 1994, stabilized around the middle of the 1990s and has been decreasing in recent years. In 2007 public debt was about 35.6% of GDP. These figures show excellent improvement of the Swedish economy since the crisis of the early 1990s.

Eighty percent of the Swedish labor force is unionized. For most unions there is a counterpart employers' organization for businesses. The unions and employer organizations are independent of both the government and political parties, although the largest federation of unions, the National Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO), always has maintained close links to the largest political party, the Social Democrats. There is no fixed minimum wage by legislation. Instead, wages are set by collective bargaining.
*GDP (2007, purchasing power parity): $308.9 billion. GDP (2007, official exchange rate): $384.1 billion.
*Annual growth rate (3rd quarter 2007): 2.5%.
*Per capita income (2006, purchasing power parity): $33,897.
*Inflation rate (December 2007): 2.2%.
*Natural resources: Forests, hydroelectric power, iron ore, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tungsten, uranium, arsenic, feldspar, timber.
*Agriculture (2006, 2.2% of GDP): Products--dairy products, meat, grains (barley, wheat), sugar beets, potatoes, wood. Arable land--6 million acres.
*Industry (2006, 38% of GDP): Types--machinery/metal products (iron and steel), electrical equipment, aircraft, paper products, precision equipment (bearings, radio and telephone parts, armaments), wood pulp and paper products, processed foods.
*Services (2006, 59.8% of GDP): Types--telecommunications, computer equipment, biotech.
*Trade: Exports (2006)--$148.8 billion. Types--machinery, transport equipment, motor vehicles, wood products, paper, pulp, chemicals, iron and steel products, and manufactured goods. Major trading partners, exports (2007)--Germany 9.9%, U.S. 9.3%, Norway 9.1%, U.K. 7.2%, EU total 59.7%. *Imports (2006)--$127.3 billion. Types--machinery, petroleum and petroleum products, chemicals, motor vehicles, iron and steel, foodstuffs, clothing. Major trading partners, imports (2007)--Germany 18.6%, Denmark 8.9%, Norway 8.5%, U.K. 6.9%, Netherlands 6.1%, Finland 6.0%, France 4.9%.

==History==
[[File:Lund Sweden.jpg|thumb|Church Altar in Lund.]]
See [[History of Sweden]]
{{Clear}}
==Some Notable Swedes==
[[File:Idunn and Bragi by Blommer 1846.jpg|thumb|323px|Idunn and Bragi by Nils Blommer, 1846.]]
* [[Alfred Nobel]], inventor of dynamite; founded the [[Nobel Prize]]
* [[Anders Celsius]], inventor of the world standard [[Celsius scale]].
* Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) inventor of the modern system of classifying all lifeforms.
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - 1970's rock group comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog.
* Dag Hammarskjöld, UN leader
* Astrid Lindgren
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme, prime minister
* Ingemar Bergman, actress
* Roxette
* Jussi Bjoeling
* Laurentius Petri, archbishop and reformer
* Lewi Pethrus (1884–1974), founder of the Swedish Pentecostal movement
* Olaus Petri, reformer
* Nathan Söderblom, archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
* Erik Trolle, bishop and statesman
* Kettil Karlsson Vasa, bishop and statesman
* [[Saint Bridget of Sweden|Saint Birgitta]] (1303–1373), patron saint of Europe
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), writer, mystic and philosopher
* Peter Stormare, actor

== Sexual immoraiity and Sweden ==
[[File:Flag of Sweden.png|thumbnail|280px|right|Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world.<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]</ref> In recent years Sweden appears to have faced a growing problem with [[bestiality]].<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/50/5050406 ''Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden'']</ref><ref>[http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece Swedes have more and more animal sex]</ref> ]]

''See also:'' [[Sexual immorality and Sweden]] and [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

On May 5, 2011 the Swedish news website ''The Local'' reported in an article entitled ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'':
{{cquote|[[Gonorrhea|Gonorrhoea]] and [[syphilis]] are making a comeback in Sweden, with the number of reported cases among young women soaring by nearly 60 percent in 2010.

According to new statistics from the Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control (Smittskyddsinstitutet), there was a 38 percent rise in reported cases of the two diseases among Swedes in general.

Worst hit, however, are young women between 15 and 24, where the number of cases increased by 57 percent.<ref>http://www.thelocal.se/33616/20110506/ ''Swedish women hit harder by [[STD]] rise'']</ref>}}

=== Libertine Sweden ===

''See also:'' [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

In November 0f 2008, the [[UK]] newspaper ''The Times'' reported:
{{cquote|Sweden, one of the world's most sexually tolerant societies, is in the throes of a strange, emotionally charged debate about the last taboo: bestiality.

The unmasking this week of an animal sex network by the Stockholm newspaper Expressen has again highlighted the issue. Members of parliament are urging a tightening of the laws (bestiality was decriminalised along with homosexuality in 1944) but the government is resisting the pressure...

Sweden has had a pioneering approach towards sex, at least since the 1960s when critically acclaimed films such as I am Curious Yellow depicted the society's free-wheeling attitudes. The country was one of the first to shed the stigma of single motherhood and, while Swedes talk less about sexual matters nowadays than 30 years ago, they are still pushing back the boundaries... Legal limits are set mainly on the commercial exploitation of sex: thus, while prostitution is technically legal, customers are seen as offenders who exploit and abuse women. Cameras have been set up near the entrances of brothels and clients leaving the premises can be fined on the spot.

But bestiality and the whole seedy sub-culture surrounding it is straining Swedish tolerance to bursting point. Religious Swedes say it violates a fundamental taboo: a passage from Leviticus 18 states: “And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." In the [[Middle Ages]], men were typically burned to death for having sex with animals. Most countries nowadays either outlaw the practice entirely (most states in the US) or prosecute penetrative sex with animals (Britain). Sweden, though, has not taken a religion-based stance. Rather, it seems to accept the idea that sex with animals can be in some way consensual. If it causes injury to the animal it can be prosecuted, although in practice only two out of the 115 cases registered have ever been investigated.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece Sweden urged to ban animals sex after newspaper expose on bestiality - The Times - November 12, 2008]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Bestiality and Sweden]]

==Further reading==
* ''Sweden'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by DK Publishing (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Sweden-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0756609135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Frommer's Sweden'' ed. by Danforth Prince (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Frommers-Sweden-Complete-Danforth-Prince/dp/0470432144/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* '' Lonely Planet Sweden'' ed. by Carolyn Bain and Graeme Cornwallis (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Sweden-Carolyn-Bain/dp/1740592271/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-25 excerpt and text search]
* ''The Rough Guide to Sweden'' ed. by James Proctor and Neil Roland (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Sweden-Travel-Guides/dp/1843536854/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584198&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
*---
* Hancock, M. Donald ''Politics in Europe: An Introduction to the Politics of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Europe-Introduction-Kingdom-Germany/dp/1933116455/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241584640&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx
* [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm source for much of this article; not copyright]
==References==
<references />

{{European Union}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]
[[Category:Sweden]]
[[Category:European History]]

User talk:DMorris

2014-01-15T19:33:08Z

JerryCa:

[[/Archive 1]]

I am not trying to cause trouble, just trying to improve what is, on the whole, a brilliant wiki [[User:NHousen|NHousen]] 3 November 10:59 ACDT
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mainstream_media&diff=prev&oldid=1016356 This] doesn't say that you're trying to improve what you think is a brilliant wiki. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 20:31, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

== FTC ==

I very much doubt you reported that spam to the Federal Trade Commission as it is the wrong organisation. It would be similar to reporting a simple act of vandalism to the FBI, nothing would happen as they would direct you to local police branch. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:48, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
:With all due respect, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read http://www.onguardonline.gov/articles/0038-spam. The local sheriff department in Charlotte County, Florida isn't going to do jack about a spammer located God knows where posting spam links on a website run by someone in New Jersey and hosted in (what ever place that isn't Charlotte County that Conservapedia's server is located). On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission does indeed enforce federal anti-spam legislation, and they do indeed have a system for reporting spammers. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:31, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

I think you two are talking at cross purposes because you are using two very different definitions of "spam". The common definition (OK, the really right definition is a pressed pork product....) is unsolicited commercial mass email. This is the "spam" that most people mean, and it is indeed the subject of prosecution by authorities at various levels of government. Within a wiki, there is another common, and very useful definition--placing an the URL of a commercial web site on a wiki page. This is commonly called "spamming a link", and leads to having one's account canceled. But it is not against the law on a wiki, unless one has gained access to that wiki through criminal means. Neither the FTC, nor the FBI, nor any other government agency is interested in enforcing the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)
:I disagree. Checkuser evidence seems to indicate that spammers are using botnets to send their spam. The botnet most likely consists of computers infected with viruses, in other words, the spammers are illegally using someone else's computer to do their dirty work. Such conduct is illegal. Besides that, companies such as Facebook and MySpace have sued spammers and won, for spam other than traditional email spam. I think Conservapedia could do the same. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 14:51, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
==Blocking==
I joined this site mainly because it takes a very solid hard line against abortion and moral decline and am able to find articles that are relevant. I don't have and don't want the capacity to be able to edit the news section so have no choice but to post on the talk page and I don't really have anything to add to articles as the ones that concern me are covered rather well so I have little choice but to break the rule or not post at all. However to blame the world financial crisis on who may or may not be on a banknote is ridiculous don't you agree?

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-14T02:36:26Z

JerryCa: /* Converage out of proportion to importance */

==Typos==
I just wanted to point out a few typos in this page, because it is linked to on the front page. In the second sentence, "'''cummulatively,'''" should be "'''cumulatively'''" if I'm not mistaken. Also, in the first section after the Table of Contents, "'''In June of 2011, Shockofgoddeclared'''" should have a space before "'''declared'''." That's all I can find at the moment; please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 20:35, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:Hi everyone. Could someone please address the aforementioned copy-editing mistakes? Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 10:49, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::These typos have been left uncorrected for over 6 months, as Kevin pointed out. Can an admin please fix them? :) [[User:CWest|CWest]] 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

==Word to substance ratio==
The definition of the word [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=accurate+definition accurate] includes the word "correct" in it. Therefore, the word-to-substance ratio of Shockofgod's request for "proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is accurate and correct" could be improved if the words "and correct" were omitted. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
:To be fair, my understanding is that it is a quote from SoG. You should take that up with SoG himself. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:39, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== A comma splice ==

"These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out Christianity and creation science." A semicolon is appropriate instead of the comma. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

== Is he really significant? ==

This article kind of seems like an advertisement for a YouTube channel and a podcast... Don't anti-atheist argument articles do the job here well enough? Not sure it really helps the argument to be featuring a guy who's most "famous" quotation is barely even English.[[User:Editman|Editman]] 7:04, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::When atheists answer [[Shockofgod]]'s question, then they will deserve to ask if he is significant. But not before then! See: [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 13 January 2014 (EST)

== Converage out of proportion to importance ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. I'm surprised how many articles link to this person. He doesn't seem to be a particularly prominent Conservative Christian.

[[Special:WhatLinksHere/Shockofgod&limit=500]]

I don't propose removing the article but perhaps we don't to link to this page from such a huge number of pages? Perhaps just keep the references where he is most relevant.
::[[Creation Ministries International]] prominently features a [[Shockofgod]] video in their flagship atheism article.[http://creation.com/atheism]. To this day, Shockofgod's question stumps atheists and utterly humiliates the atheist community. And unlike [[Stephen Hawking]], Shockofgod never embarrassed himself by positing that the universe poofed itself into existence from nothing (There is a reason the [[Shockofgod]] CP article is larger than the Stephen Hawking CP article - Hawking has never stumped the Christian community, but Shockofgod's question continues to stump atheists. See: [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:::Does it by any chance feature this video[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmKhEgeo54]--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:01, 13 January 2014 (EST)
That charge would never standup in court. Shockofgod promoting a redirect to counter attempts to repeatedly shut down his YouTube channel was warranted. The redirect would direct people to his new YouTube channel after atheists attempted to censor him by repeatedly false flagging his YouTube channels. See: [http://creationwiki.org/YouTube_participant_advice#Using_a_URL_redirect_to_stop_false_reporting Using a redirect to thwart atheist censorship].

After embarrassing yourself with this spurious charge, I think you need to redeem yourself at his point and answer Shockofgod's question. And unfortunately for you, this is something that you cannot do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 13 January 2014 (EST)
::I don't need to answer his questions as I agree with him, however obtaining information by deception which you just admitted he did, is wrong, no matter the circumstances--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:28, 13 January 2014 (EST)
I made no such admission. Your desperation is showing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:39, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:: Whatever his reasons were, Shockofgod attempted to scam users passwords for his own means. Do you agree with his actions or do you condemn him for them?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 20:10, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:::And these people will say or do anything to keep ShockofGod - or any other Christian for that matter - from spreading the message. I saw that admitted pagan's video, and I also saw what he did within the first twenty seconds of it rolling. Surely, you don't think smoking weed improves clarity, intellect, and judgement, do you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 13 January 2014 (EST)
::::Certainly not, I have never smoked weed or any other drug. I just feel there are many people who get the message across with less moral ambivalence then Shockofgod. The Pope for example just condemned the evils of abortion, a voice of far more authority and moral upstanding than some minor internet celebrity. Also whether Pagan is a weedhead or not is irelevent, Shockofgod lost all integrity over this episode.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:21, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:::::And the alleged theft of passwords by Shock has to be proven. I for one am not going to sit here and have a pot-smoking, hate-filled atheist lecture us over who's committing sins; talk about the pot calling the kettle black! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:::::: As we are on the topic of smoke they sat it rarely appears without fire, however experience tells us that is not always true. Point taken Karajou, I will shut up about this now.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 21:36, 13 January 2014 (EST)

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-14T02:21:34Z

JerryCa: /* Converage out of proportion to importance */

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-14T01:22:49Z

JerryCa: /* Converage out of proportion to importance */

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-14T01:10:23Z

JerryCa: /* Converage out of proportion to importance */

==Typos==
I just wanted to point out a few typos in this page, because it is linked to on the front page. In the second sentence, "'''cummulatively,'''" should be "'''cumulatively'''" if I'm not mistaken. Also, in the first section after the Table of Contents, "'''In June of 2011, Shockofgoddeclared'''" should have a space before "'''declared'''." That's all I can find at the moment; please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 20:35, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:Hi everyone. Could someone please address the aforementioned copy-editing mistakes? Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 10:49, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::These typos have been left uncorrected for over 6 months, as Kevin pointed out. Can an admin please fix them? :) [[User:CWest|CWest]] 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

==Word to substance ratio==
The definition of the word [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=accurate+definition accurate] includes the word "correct" in it. Therefore, the word-to-substance ratio of Shockofgod's request for "proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is accurate and correct" could be improved if the words "and correct" were omitted. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
:To be fair, my understanding is that it is a quote from SoG. You should take that up with SoG himself. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:39, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== A comma splice ==

"These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out Christianity and creation science." A semicolon is appropriate instead of the comma. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

== Is he really significant? ==

This article kind of seems like an advertisement for a YouTube channel and a podcast... Don't anti-atheist argument articles do the job here well enough? Not sure it really helps the argument to be featuring a guy who's most "famous" quotation is barely even English.[[User:Editman|Editman]] 7:04, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::When atheists answer [[Shockofgod]]'s question, then they will deserve to ask if he is significant. But not before then! See: [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 13 January 2014 (EST)

== Converage out of proportion to importance ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. I'm surprised how many articles link to this person. He doesn't seem to be a particularly prominent Conservative Christian.

[[Special:WhatLinksHere/Shockofgod&limit=500]]

I don't propose removing the article but perhaps we don't to link to this page from such a huge number of pages? Perhaps just keep the references where he is most relevant.
::[[Creation Ministries International]] prominently features a [[Shockofgod]] video in their flagship atheism article.[http://creation.com/atheism]. To this day, Shockofgod's question stumps atheists and utterly humiliates the atheist community. And unlike [[Stephen Hawking]], Shockofgod never embarrassed himself by positing that the universe poofed itself into existence from nothing (There is a reason the [[Shockofgod]] CP article is larger than the Stephen Hawking CP article - Hawking has never stumped the Christian community, but Shockofgod's question continues to stump atheists. See: [[Essay: The question atheists fear]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:::Does it by any chance feature this video[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmKhEgeo54]--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:01, 13 January 2014 (EST)
That charge would never standup in court. Shockofgod promoting a redirect to counter attempts to repeatedly shut down his YouTube channel was warranted. The redirect would direct people to his new YouTube channel after atheists attempted to censor him by repeatedly false flagging his YouTube channels. See: [http://creationwiki.org/YouTube_participant_advice#Using_a_URL_redirect_to_stop_false_reporting Using a redirect to thwart atheist censorship].

After embarrassing yourself with this spurious charge, I think you need to redeem yourself at his point and answer Shockofgod's question. And unfortunately for you, this is something that you cannot do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 13 January 2014 (EST)
::I don't need to answer his questions as I agree with him, however obtaining information by deception which you just admitted he did, is wrong, no matter the circumstances--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 17:28, 13 January 2014 (EST)
I made no such admission. Your desperation is showing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:39, 13 January 2014 (EST)
:: Whatever his reasons where, Shockofgod attempted to scam users passwords for his own means. Do you agree with his actions or do you condem him for them?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 20:10, 13 January 2014 (EST)

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-13T22:28:27Z

JerryCa:

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-13T22:01:26Z

JerryCa: /* Converage out of proportion to importance */

Talk:Shockofgod

2014-01-13T21:48:30Z

JerryCa: Undo revision, posters inquiry was genuine

Talk:Atheist hypocrisy

2014-01-06T20:18:59Z

JerryCa: forgot to sign

Hey Conservative, I think the page/article could do with a bit better formatting. I think that maybe each of the individual section/areas in which you wrote about Atheist Hypocrisy could/should be a separate section. I also believe having the HERE, HERE and HERE isn't really something that should be in an article as it looks a wee bit unprofessional. Nice article though. In Jesus, PennyS [[User:PennyS|PennyS]] 08:00, 6 August 2013 (EDT)
:Thanks for the input on the formatting. I took your suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:02, 6 August 2013 (EDT)
:: Nice article but I think a new title would suit it better, perhaps atheism and poor lifestyle choices. An obese or sexist atheist is not so much a hypocrite but more of a product of his poor lifestyle as a result of his atheism. What do you think?--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 15:18, 6 January 2014 (EST)

Talk:Atheist hypocrisy

2014-01-06T20:18:34Z

JerryCa:

David Beckham

2013-12-30T01:41:06Z

JerryCa: Updated, changed Britian for England in the first two examples.

[[File:David Beckham.jpg|right]]
'''David Beckham''' (b. England 2 May 1975) is a retired soccer player, widely considered to be one of the best players England has ever produced, which means next-to-nothing because [[atheist]]ic England has the most overrated players in the world. Beckham's primary (and perhaps only) talent is to say what the [[liberal media]] like or not say anything at all. Britain's pathetic 2012 Olympic team did not even want him.

He is the former England captain, and has played for his country 108 times, although he now plays club football in America. Beckham made his name as a player with English club [[Manchester United]] and spent a period at Spanish club [[Real Madrid]]. In January 2007, he left Real and signed a five-year contract with [[Los Angeles Galaxy]]. After several loan spells he joined French club [[Paris Saint-Germain]] in 2013 retiring soon afterwards.

Beckham has also lucrative endorsement deals with companies such as Adidas, Pepsi, Gillette and Motorola. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ Times Online]

The David Beckham LA Galaxy shirt has become the biggest-selling sports jersey in the world, according to Adidas, the sportswear manufacturer with which the midfielder has a £320m lifetime deal. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2116047.ece Beckham fans]

He has three sons with wife [[Victoria Beckham]]: Brooklyn (b. 4 March 1999), Romeo (b. 1 September 2002) and Cruz (b. 20 February 2005).

His popular nicknames are "Becks" and "Spice boy". He has tattoos in Hebrew (from [[Song of Solomon]]), English, Latin, and Hindi.

== See also ==

*[[Overrated Sports Stars]]
*[[Victoria Beckham]]
*[[Hugo Sanchez]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/davidbeckham.html David Beckham]

[[Category:Football soccer]]

[[Category: Soccer]]

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2013

2013-12-28T03:59:10Z

JerryCa: /* Athletes? */

==Putin==
Really? Putin? With all his acts to crush free speech and his refusal to really ever yield power? Okay. Hey man Hitler didn't like the gays either maybe he should be on this list.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 11:07, 11 December 2013 (EST)

:Putin yielded power, and then was elected after an absence. And [[liberals]] suppress [[free speech]] in the [[United States]] more than Putin does in Russia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:15, 19 December 2013 (EST)

::Putin is furthering [[Christianity]] in Russia while in America, liberals and Obama are trying to remove its influence. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:43, 19 December 2013 (EST)

I think that's a little unfair - saying he yielded power - he became Prime Minister when he couldn't constitutionally be President anymore - and many saw Medvedev as a pawn. As a Constitution expert - you also know that many of Russia's laws - that Putin supports - wouldn't pass muster here. Putin's laws reach far beyond the public school sphere, and they aren't private reactions to comments - as is the case when liberal producers at A&E decide to suspend a reality star - they're de jure. ALSO - his PARDON? What? When the Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov ran against Putin for president - a huge campaign issue of his was to pardon this guy - Putin hopped on board years too late for you to give him credit.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

Putin opposes the gay agenda and supports Christianity, but look at his CP article: [[Vladimir Putin]]. He supports Antiamerican countries like [[Iran]] or [[North Korea]].--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 04:18, 21 December 2013 (EST)

== Merkel ==

I would suggets the Conservative German chancellor [[Angela Merkel]], who won the election in 2013.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:38, 16 December 2013 (EST)
:I like Merkel too.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:17, 19 December 2013 (EST)

== Gennady Zyuganov ==

Although he is a member of the KPRF, he does stand up to Putin's oligarchical rule. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:56, 18 December 2013 (EST)

== Duck Dynasty ==

I would strongly support Merkel over Duck Dynasty - if only for longevity. Let's be real, if this story had happened in January instead of December would we really be talking about it now? If we had a conservative of the month rankings - fine - but of the year? Eh.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:19, 20 December 2013 (EST)

:You make a valid point, but the Duck Dynasty family's position sets a remarkable precedent that will last far more than one month. Merkel has held power a long time but her influence is less clear.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 20 December 2013 (EST)

::Fair enough - understandable.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:31, 20 December 2013 (EST)

== Athletes? ==

Only one athlete made the list of nominees this year. That's pathetic and shows that [[liberals]] are succeeding in censoring athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 20 December 2013 (EST)
:Do we usually have more than 1 or 2? In 2010 I counted zero; in 2011 I counted 1; 2012 there are numerous but two entries; 2013 1. Double check me on those counts, I was skimming.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:07, 20 December 2013 (EST)

::OK, apparently I was mistaken about there having been more conservative leadership from athletes in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:14, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::: Though not a candidate for this prize, Russia's Yelena Isinbayeva expressed solid support, in English, for Putin's anti homosexual policies.--[[User:JerryCa|JerryCa]] 22:59, 27 December 2013 (EST)

== Sortable ... but numbered also? ==

Sortable is a good addition, but how about automatic numbering in the first column. Does anyone know how to add that, such that when entries change order, their numbering is automatically updated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:I'm looking now but I'm not actually finding anything - in fact in the WikiMedia page I'm looking at it suggests that the table will always sort by the order the text is displayed. I think this is actually by design - if a table had 200+ rows and a user wanted to edit a typo in the first row - it'd be much harder to find that row in the table markup if it wasn't in the order first seen. Still, I'll keep looking.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:30, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::Yeah sorry Andy sadly I can't find anything - I don't think it's possible.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:08, 21 December 2013 (EST)

Mikhail Kalashnikov

2013-12-28T03:49:42Z

JerryCa: Added date of death

[[Image:MikhailKalashnikov.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]
'''Mikhail Kalashnikov''', born in Russia in 1919, died 23 December 2013, was the inventor of the [[AK-47]]. Since its invention in 1947, the AK-47 has been used by many diverse groups, including [[terrorism|terrorist]] groups, and most armies of the developing world.

Kalashnikov now sells his own brand of [[vodka]].

[[Category:Inventors|Kalshnikov, Mikhail]]

Talk:God

2013-12-28T03:44:57Z

JerryCa: Undo revision 1072272 by Georgeboosh (talk)

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:God/Archive 1|1]].



==Abrahamic religion==

At least to me, this page practically (there are some very minor reference to other religions) makes it seem like the concept of a deity does not exist outside of the [[Abrahamic religion]], which is obviously false, and writes almost solely from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Perhaps "according to [[Abrahamic religion]]...." should be added, then, to make it clearer that this is not the only concept of a deity? --[[User:JamesCartwright|JamesCartwright]] 16:00, 4 December 2010 (EDT)

==Suggested rewording==
"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm (Heaven)."

"God is the sovereign creator and eternal ruler of all things and beings that exist, whether in the physical universe or in the spiritual realm, often times called Heaven."

[[User:DanK|DanK]] 00:00, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

== why (Redirected from Deity) to the page god ==

is it not more logical to send anyone looking for Deity to other gods page (who tells you nothing about the other gods but rather what the bible say about them) or for that matter a page about Deities not the god page if this is the trustworthy encyclopedia would you not try to be some level of open minded --[[User:Kyo|Kyo]] 23:49, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

== Spelling error ==
"Deity" is misspelled ("diety") in the "Terminology" section. --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 15:12, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

== Minor misspelling ==

Under the header "Terminology", the word "diety". I checked the reference link, and there aren't any misspellings there.

Please fix to "deity". Thanks. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:24, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bias ==
Why do you claim trustworthiness yet try to pass your opinion off as fact? The article should start with "According to Christianity..." because then that wouldn't be biased at all
:Why are you biased against God? Why are you biased against this website? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:32, 27 June 2012 (EDT)

== Formatting issues ==

Instead of this:

<nowiki>''This article is about the biblical God. For the term as used to refer to any divine being, see [[Other Gods]]''
[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the ending]]
{{cquote|'''Genesis 1:1''' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.}}
{{trinity}}</nowiki>

It should be this:
<nowiki>
''This article is about the biblical God. For the term as used to refer to any divine being, see [[Other Gods]]''
{{trinity}}
[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the ending]]
{{cquote|'''Genesis 1:1''' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.}}
</nowiki>

so that the template Trinity does not end up stuffed to the left of the image, thus stuffing the text of to the side. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:05, 9 December 2012 (EST)

== Prager University ==

I want to put this video in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:57, 16 March 2013 (EDT)