Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-10-28T18:29:32Z

JulianAdderley: /* Thanks for defending me */

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|here]]
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>> Jan '08]] [[/FebApr08| >> Feb-Apr '08]]

== Is this the end? ==

Is HelpJazz no more? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:44, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:You man of little Faith. --[[User:TomB|TomB]] 17:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome back! ==

You were sorely missed! --[[User:TomB|TomB]] 17:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations on your graduation. I hope you still have an itching to help the project. You have been missed. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:53, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Hey there, Mr. Jazz. (May I call you Help?) Word to the wise, which you definitely are - tread softly 'til you get the lay of the land. Believe it or not, it's even more treacherous than before. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:30, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::HelpJazz has friends all over the site and is well respected. If he posts again that can only be positive. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:36, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the illustration. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:18, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Are you actually back? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations on graduating! That's a challenging major also, chemical engineering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:23, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks all, for the congratulations and welcome (including the one I got in my email). To answer your questions: I'm not "back", inasmuch as I never really "left", I just didn't post for a while. In the immediate future I won't be editing much, because I've been having a lot of carpal tunnel problems, but we'll see what happens. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
:How can we be sure your account hasn't been hacked, and this isn't just some vandal/imposter posting here? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:50, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the question comes to mind of why someone would want to hack my account. It's not like I have sysop powers or anything. Taking aside motive, let's get existential about this: what if someone hacked my account, and that was the HelpJazz that you knew and now this is the ''real'' HelpJazz? Then there'd be no way to prove I was hacked, because the hacker would know every way to prove he was "real", and the real me wouldn't have any way to prove that he wasn't the hacker! Trippy, eh?

::Or you could just trust I'm not an imposter and scrutinize the few edits I will be making (which is probably happening already). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:08, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::::You do know that that was just a joke right? Not ''paranoia'' as some humourless fools would think. Its good to see you back. 494523500 43294 96-079 94482! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Yeah, I figured as much :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::From one recent graduate, to another - congratulations! (or as we say ''omedetou gozaimasu''!) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashi te!'']] 15:55, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Do you have any interest in writing [[Denmark|Danish]] related content for this encyclopedia? If so, you might want to join the Danish Writers Group (DWG). Let me know if you're interested... [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:01, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:Um... the only Danishes I know about are the kind with cream cheese filling. Mmmmmmm cream cheese. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:25, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
::I'll take that as a "yes". [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:00, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Woot! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:56, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Accusation==
You have accused me on my talk page of being an "obvious sock". I invite you to retract this, as it is completely false. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant [[User:Rp6]], who made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Neo-Cains&diff=prev&oldid=512681 this] reference to something written by [[user:Roopilots6]] [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== You called? ==

What is the matter? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
: Dearest <s>Bohdan</s> Hank, could you please a look at the block log over the last hour or two and let me know what you think? Thanks, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What is there to think? Looks like a normal block log to me. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I was talking mostly about DrHubertJNugz and SamuelHTD. The orchestra were likely going to be trouble as well, though none of them were allowed to make an edit. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I'll take a look at those two users. Don't worry about being blocked. I won't allow it! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:19, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::DrHubertJNugz was probably a sockpuppet. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:27, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Vandals, trolls and socks==
Since you think I block the undeserving, perhaps you would like to consider what to to with the two most recent signings, the brothers Nick and Mark. Coincidence, ''non''? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Very likely vandals. Of course, they could also turn out to be two of the best editors we've ever had, so there's a risk vs. reward to think about.
:I don't want to give away my whole strategy, lest a future vandal reads but I can tell you this: I like to let them make an edit or two before I block users. 98% of vandals reveal themselves within the first 10 edits (90% within the first 2 edits). Or if you want, you could ask them directly, but they will probably just tell you they are related or something. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, but getting them quick (ie even before an edit) does, I think, help to discourage the others. It would seem you distrust your own nose almost as much as you do mine... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Possibly your approach may be the more judicious one here, but time will tell. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Having been blocked without cause before, I know that you will discourage more innocents by being too vigilant than you scare away vandals. Plus, if you wait until they have actually done something banworthy, then you don't have to worry about the email crying "but I haven't done anything!" (Which I have gotten). I still feel bad about some guy who had Mudkipz in his name (or however you spell it), and I blocked him before he made any edits. He sent me an e-mail saying that his son came up with the name, but when I unblocked him and apologized, he never came back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sex Ed==

Does teaching children that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina really constitute sex education? If not then you may want to rethink your sourcing on the Liberal Myths article. I would have thought real sex ed involved teaching what to do with those organs, which is not taught in kindergartens (we - as in almost all recently schooled Australians - have been there). [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 16:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, the determination of how early to teach kids different levels of sex education isn't a "yes" or "no" answer. If you can find something better, please be my guest to put it into the article. I don't particularly like the one I found, but it was good enough for the time. Also, something like this belongs on the talk page of the article in question, so that people can follow it easier. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:51, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sock ==

Are you under the impression that User:Bugler is a sockpuppet? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:No sir. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::A parodist? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I find it extremely difficult to say with certainty if someone believes what they say or are pretending to believe what they say. I can say that Bugler is very forceful in his convictions. You've known him longer than I have though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:00, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I think he is a parodist. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Hi, I am sorry to interject if this is a private conversation (as private as can be on a wiki!) but I would like to state something as I have been following this discussion. I have watched this site for awhile before creating an account and I find Bugler quick to block, impossible to reason with and the sort of person to drive people away from this site. I don't know if he is a parodist but I think its irrelevant. I have seen him block for a month over very minor details that should only earn a warning. I have only had to deal with him once and I felt I was to be blocked for simply asking a question of him. He got quite aggresive with me for merely making a suggestion. I expect he will block me for this comment but I wanted to add my two cents as a concerned editor. Thanks guys. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:11, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of worshipping environmentalists link ==

Hi - just curious as to why you removed my addition of the link to the photograph of "worshipping" environmentalists. That photo is even linked to from the main page right now, so why not put it in the article? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:Because it's not encyclopedic, and it's not a valid reference. It's on the main page as news. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ok, makes sense - you're right: news!=encyclopedia. Thanks, --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 23:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Jpatt's censorship line==
Moved to [[Talk:Censorship#Jpatt's censorship line]], so that Jpatt can see it

==Al Franken==
Thank you very much for your help on the Al Franken page.... However, I don't see myself getting stuck in that mess. I have looked through the history, and it seems anyone who doesn't toe the line gets banned pretty quickly. However, I would ask that you also check out the Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them page. Thank you again for all your help. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 14:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:Sure I'll take a look at it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::Learntogether just readded the bit about rudeness, vulgarity and whatnot... I really don't think anything is going to change, it's just sad that we can't provide insight and information without partisan mud slinging. Anyway, thanks for trying. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Relax Nate. Anyone listening to Al Franken is aware of his style and it's not exactly Bill Cosby. He's had a history of being rude and vulgar and so, shockingly, we're actually going to call it rude and vulgar. Most of the changes desired were allowed to stick (which you don't acknowledge), so what are you complaining about? You didn't get every single word that you wanted? You're coming across as a whiner. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, he ''is'' pretty rude and vulgar. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::A, I don't see how this conversation is in anyway pertinent to you, and B, I don't have a problem with you saying that you find him rude and vulgar, that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to take. However, when you're writing something as a fact, you need to be aware of legal definitions and the possiblity of libel. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 13:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Nate, the name you mentioned above is mine. What you're really saying is, "How dare you comment while I'm talking behind your back." And it would really help if you would accept that we can call a spade a spade. You may feel that there's no such thing as rude behavior, but that won't fly here. And somehow I don't think Andy is worried about being sued by Al Franken because he's really not rude. It would be interesting to see him defend that in court and, as a master of drumming up free publicity for himself through controversies, Franken would hardly want to give that same standing to us -- although I'm sure Andy would welcome it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It has nothing to do with talking "behind your back." HelpJazz was editing that page and I let him know what was going on. I also thanked him for his help. As for the rest, I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but I don't think HelpJazz's user page is the place for it. If you'd like to continue on my page, I'd be happy to keep this going. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 12:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==[[Bipolar disorder]]==
Moved to [[talk:Bipolar disorder#Moved from User talk: HelpJazz]]

== I know I'm late, but... ==

"Now there's a blank space on the right side." Literally LOL, my co-workers were starting. AWESOME. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)'' <-I wish I had your stamina for the fight...''
:Hee hee, thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Big Science==
Keep your Liberal tanks off my lawn. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I know what that means, but aren't you the one who's always complaining that I'm insinuating threats? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:23, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::You threaten, you add deceit, you infect with your Liberal viruses, spreading disease, lies and deceit. If you were a man, you would leave this site and propagate your poison elsewhere. Since, in my opinion, you are a maggot, you attempt to spread it her. You are not wanted here, nor are your acolytes. Begone. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

What a clever little chap you are (not really) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:12, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should probably calm down a little bit. Seeing as how I never said anything personal against you, and you called ma a maggot, I think the wrong person was blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Wait, or didn't you know that I could unblock myself? You weren't around when I was last active, so it makes sense that you wouldn't know. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, I knew, but I was giving you the cahnce to behave decently and return to your appropriate place beneath your cesspit rock, ''Jazzman''. Plot and plan CP's decline to your heart's content there, but don't expect to snigger and sneer in the cesspit and then feel you have free rein to cause subcversion and damage here, ''matey''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You should be careful. If your veins are bulging as much as they sound like they are, something's ready to burst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Your card is marked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==HJ==
I see you're reverting ''more'' factual edits now. You really want to watch yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:24, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:My bad, you lucked out on that one. Apologies? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Ah, the ''argot'' of the cesspit. So smile-making. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

I don't know how you've upset Bugler (or vice versa) but I suggest that you both take some time out and calm down. This is a wiki and it relies in collaboration, not antagonism. I've given you both a block and hope you both respect it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:48, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==Champagne Socialists==
You don't seem to have much of importance to do, so perhaps you could chip in with some more CSs. Pip-pip. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know what that means. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::The definition was pretty clear, I thought. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, it isn't. You apparently can see through my computer screen and see the importance of what I'm doing, so why not use your powers to just tell me what CS means instead of making me guess? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::==Champagne Socialists== [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Oh man, I totally just saw the title of this section. Now it makes a little more sense. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ah yeah, well, listing them doesn't actually prove "common". Of course, if I didn't have more important things to do and I really wanted to make a list of rich liberals, I would at least use a reference or two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::The 'more important things' being following me round and inserting Liberal values into my articles, presumably. It's flattering, in a way, but terribly, terribly sad at the same time. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, you followed me around. I edited them first, and later you came back through. And I didn't see any liberal values? I don't find it flattering though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Bugler: stop following HelpJazz around. Thanks! [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, Henry, it's the other way round, despite Jazzman's denials. He has been looking up articles that I have written and making subtle, undermining changes. There are too many for it to be a coincidence. I have no wish to follow him around whatsoever. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::And now he's at it again! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::...says the guy who keeps harassing HelpJazz on his talk page, calling him such things as "cesspit". --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 18:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

==Politics==
As you stated on your user page, I'm asking you about your political views! Some have referred to me as a Libertarian, although I find myself to be a free-market independent. If you could, please give me your views on economics, foreign policy, abortion, gun control, and anything else that you view as valid! I haven't had a good political discussion in a long time, and you seem to be a very rational and intelligent person. Whenever you get a chance, Jazz; I have this page on my watch list. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Woo! I'll give you a short overview for now, and I can expand later if you see fit:
:*Economics: I think we should have as little government regulation as possible, which includes privatizing such agencies as the FDA. I used to be a cold hard liner on welfare (''a la'' Ayn Rand), but now I think that there should be a minimum safety net (''a la'' Milton Friedman). I like the idea of a [[negative income tax]], but I don't know enough economic theory to be able to accurately guage the effect.
:*Foreign policy: I would probably be what you call a [[realist]]. The idea of the EU scares me a little bit in a 1930's distopia novel sort of way. I think I'm an isolationist (I believe that a lot of our terrorist problems stem from, at least in part, our meddling in other people's business), but there are likely circumstances where isolationism doesn't make sense. Now when I say isolationism, I don't mean a complete cutoff from the outside world (which is what [[Ron Paul]] detractors seemed to think he meant), I mean keeping our military out of places it doesn't belong.
:*Abortion: unlike many people, abortion is not an issue that will make or break a political race for me. Constitutionally, I think it should be a state's decision, not the federal government's. I think pragmatically it should be legalized, but I won't be donating money to any pro-abortion causes any time soon, and if a friend came to me for advice, abortion would be last on the list.
:*Gun control: I believe that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Except sometimes pistol whipping. In all seriousness I think large-scale freedom to carry firearms lowers crime rates, but for me that's a pretty minor issue. What scares me more is the militarization of our police force. The founding fathers wrote the second amendment because they had just fought a war against their government. While I don't see it happening any time soon, if it ever comes down to a choice between an Orwellian future or an armed revolt, I'd be on the side of the revolt any day. (As you can probably tell by now, I read a little too much as a kid!)
:*Other: the War on Drugs is probably my pet issue right now. Prohibition has never worked, and the War on Drugs is being used as an excuse for a lot of things that people would otherwise find inexcusable. Last summer a Swat team (see "gun control" above) raided a house in which there were 4 or 5 children, one an infant, in search for a man wanted on drug crimes. The man's wife was killed, a dog was killed, and one of the children was injured; the man they were looking for wasn't even there. I saw another story of a mother of two who was arrested and convicted based on the word of a known junkie trying to reduce his sentence. Her daughters had to raise themselves. A man was pulled over by the police and found out that he had something like $29,000 cash in his car. They (legally) confiscated his money, the premise being that he was buying drugs (the man claimed he was going to buy cell phones to resell). He was never brought up on charges, but he never got his money back. Then there are the increase of crime rates: when drugs are illegal anyways it lowers the rational barrier towards using violence in relation to drugs. Especially when you rachet up the penalties and have mandatory sentencing. Then there's the fact that drug money goes to fund things like gangs and terrorist organizations. If Pfizer sold marijuana, the profits would be used to research a cure for cancer. And safety: if Pfizer sold <insert drug here>, and it had a "bad batch" it would be sued. It could be better regulated to keep it away from kids; it could be taxed so it would put money into government coffers instead of taking money away. It would lower the "stigma", and people would better be able to deal with addiction (now to deal with addiction the 0th step of the 12 step program is addmitting you regularly break the law). Oh yeah, and then there's the whole argument that if you want to slowly kill yourself, who the heck am I to stop you. Lastly, there may or may not be medical benefits to drugs; so long as they are illegal, we can never really know the truth. The FDA poo-poos any study on marijuana regardless of merit, and all studying has to be done with government-grown marijuana. Sorry if you've heard all these arguments before, I had to get it off my chest :)
:I guess that's about it. I think prostitution should be legalized, for many the same reasons as drugs. It should be noted that I've never been to so much as a strip club, and I don't do drugs, and never plan on doing either. Just in case someone decides to use the "you're just for legalization because you do it yourself" argument. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, I just have a few things for you. I agree with you on the majority of those issues, but here goes.

::*'''Economics''': I agree with privatization of ''most'' businesses, though I think we see that in the current American economic system. I don't think it's a great example of the privatizing the FDA for the simple fact that I don't see a potential for profit. The only scenario I can think of off the top of my head is something like a certification, i.e. drug companies being required to pay for a certification of a certain drug in the hopes of maximizing profits, though I don't think that would be feasible. Capital tends to suck the morality out of a person, and I wouldn't want a new pharmaceutical fast-tracked into the market (Vioxx rings a bell) because some big-wig for the FDA got a few extra bucks. A few other examples of government agencies unable to be privatized would be the CDC and IRS. Same rationale as above.
:::As far as the negative income tax is concerned, I don't see a desire to raise one's financial situation. Sure, nobody wants to live at poverty level, but if you're guaranteed a stipend check to keep you at a certain income level, what's the motivation? I live in West Virginia, and currently our welfare system requires one to have a job while receiving assistance, plus you only receive it for a certain period of time except in special circumstances such as HUD and ...I can't think of the acronym, but it's for kids (you get milk, cheese, stuff like that ... WICC I think—that's why people here keep on popping out kids to keep their welfare).
::*'''Foreign policy''' :Nothing here. I agree with you on every point. However, our military actions in the middle east (against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not so much in Iraq) are justified. They didn't attack us because we were "meddling," they attacked us because they despise our way of life in regards to capitalism and world trade.
::*'''Abortion''': I wouldn't say that this would "make or break" an election for me, though I think how a person feels regarding abortion shows a lot about his character. The only time I think abortion is justified is when a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the fetus, in which case the decision should be left to the affected parties (mother and father). This is actually the main reason I'm not voting for Obama: his views on the "borderline baby act" (I think that's the name of the legislation). If a baby, who is supposed to be aborted, is born alive, that doctor ''should'' be required to do everything possible to make sure that baby survives. Obama feels like this "undermines the decision of the mother," which is morally despicable. I would have no problem with a federal referendum against abortion.
::*'''Gun Control''': This is a real hot-button topic for me. I'm not too sure what you mean by militarization of our police force, though. In a country that allows for open ownership of firearms, our police officers have to make sure they are properly armed to deal with the most severe threats. I do not see a reason why an everyday American citizen needs to own a semi-automatic assault rifle. Handguns, hunting rifles, sporting guns ... all okay in my book. Assault rifles should be banned.
::*'''War on Drugs''': So what? Legalize all of them? Sure, you show me a few select instances where drug raids went bad, but this is plaguing our country. It's not just the illegality of the drugs that causes crime, it's the fact that these low-life junkies spend all of the their money on drugs and therefore don't have money for anything else. That causes them to steal money for basic human necessities. Even if drugs were legalized, regulated, and taxed, we would still have this problem unless some sort of "quota" was instituted. However, with privatized business, who would institute and enforce the quota? Then we have an entirely different can of worms, and all that capital that came from stopping the war on drugs now goes to medical assistance to junkies who have no job and no health insurance. I know one of the main arguments against drugs is all the "money it would save," but in my opinion it's really revenue-neutral.
::As far as Pfizer marketing drugs, I know where you're coming from, but chew on this. A guy synthesizing heroin makes a bad batch and a few dozen people die from it. If that same drug was regulated by Pfizer and they release a bad batch and was purchased ''legally'' in ''mass quantities'', how many people would die? This isn't lead-laced tylenol, this is the most addictive drug known to man being sold in mass quantities. So you sue Pfizer ... after 1,000 people have died. Doesn't seem to rectify the situation.
::I think that's about all I have for now. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply! Sorry I wasn't as articulate as I was at the beginning, but I'm getting really tired and this is ''really'' long.
::[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::A little caveat I should have started with: I'm not very hard lined on most things and I'm willing to hear reasonable discussion. So just because I sound wishy-washy, it doesn't mean I'm changing up my story on ya' ;-)
:::*Economics: the idea of privatizing goes along the lines of UL (united laboratories, which certifies hundreds of products after rigorous testing), EnergyStar, and that insurance rating company that rates cars (yeah, I'm using technical terms here). There are currently, right now, organizations which exsist simply to make sure that other companies are making good products. These companies make money because they charge to perform the rating service; other companies use the rating service so that they can put the logo on their product, thus increasing their sales. Now I fully admit that these companies are open to payoffs, but to my knowledge the companies that are out there already are scandal-free. I don't know ''why'' they are scandal-free, so that would certainly be something to research and discover, but at least we know it can be done. I also don't think *everything* should be privatized; I used to teeter on anarchocapitalism until I realized that it was just plain looney! Obviously certain government functions, like the IRS can't be run by private business, because it just opens up the door for too much corruption, and there's no good check and balance to keep it from happening. Other agencies (such as the CDC) could have their functions privatized, but there's no way to make money off of it. I don't think I would be opposed to ''subcontracting'' the CDC; so the government pays, but the company has to keep costs down and performance up. For me it's mostly about incentives: what incentive does the CDC have to do it's job properly or efficiently? Arguably Congress should be keeping check, but then again if CDC offices are located in a Congressman's district, he might very well want them to work inefficiently to increase revenue to his home town. I think any solution, private or public, that does not address the issue of incetives will ultimately not be the ideal solution. The negative income was easily the least-sure idea on that whole list. Theoretically it incentivizes working better than welfare, because you always earn more money for each dollar more you earn. As far as I know there has only been one real study, and it was just of one town in New Jersey. Another problem with it is that it would have to be nationwide, otherwise people on welfare in Kentucky might travel to Ohio to get a better deal, thus draining the system. Perhaps instead of a strict negative tax, there should be a flat tax (of this I am a lot more certain) with a proper welfare system in tact. I think the problem with ''any'' welfare system is that you either ''have'' to take into account that some people will forever live on it, or you have to allow people to be kicked onto the streets. Clearly the latter isn't good government policy. Of course charity and labor laws and the minimum wage also factor in to this in various ways.
:::*Foreign policy: I didn't pay attention enough to the news at the begining of the Afghan or Iraq wars (don't shoot me; I wasn't old enough to vote :p) so I can't say whether or not we should have ever gone. I do feel, however, that now that we are there, we can't leave them worse off than when we started. As for "they hate us for our values", that really hasn't ever been shown to be true. Plus the terrorists themselves said that they attacked us so that we would leave their lands. We put al Queda in power to fight the Russians. I'm not saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we never fought the Cold War (though I think you could make the argument that it's true), and I'm definitely NOT saying that we were "asking for it", since terrorism is ''never'' a way to get your point across.
:::*Abortion: The reason people get worked up about abortion is, except for a few debatable facts and logical inferences, it largely is based on what you ''think'' or ''feel'', not on what logically makes sense. This goes for pro-choicers just as much as it goes for pro-lifers, and the fact is, in many ways, both of them are right.
:::*Gun control: Sometimes when I see real life Swat teams on tv it scares me a bit. You are right that unlimited access to guns could cause an arms race between cops and criminals, but more and more police carrying automatic weapons as standard issue. I realize my argument against gun control is a little... esoteric (is that the word I want?). I don't think that there is any reason for a citizen to practically own an automatic weapon, but at the same time I don't think they should be banned, because there may be a time in the future when there ''is'' a practical reason for an ordinary citizen to own an assault rifle, and by that point it will be too late to relax the rules. Again, I read too much Orwell as a child.
:::*War on Drugs: I dunno, to be honest. Obviously I don't think it would be wise to legalize all of them immediately. At a minimum marijuana should be legalized; nobody has ever died from it and it's less addictive than nicotine. I can't answer about junkies -- for now. Let me sleep on it and see what comes to me in the morning :) The isolated examples weren't meant for their literal description, but for the rights they represent. There have been numerous infringments on basic human rights which would have never happened had not the justification of "we are fighting drugs" been made. I can list them more specifically, but I'd have to do some research. I think you missed the point of the Pfizer example; let me state it more clearly. For starters, companies have quality control departments, and companies can be sued if something goes wrong. Let's say a dealer is making drugs (and I'm going to sound ignorant here, so bare with me) and he decides to add fertilizer to the mix because it gives you a better high, even though he knows it's very dangerous. He's going to make a ton of money at first because it's better than the drug he's currently selling. People will start dying, but his customer base won't be affected that much because there are always new druggies to take the place of the old ones. After a while, people will figure out that it's a bad drug and eventually word of mouth will spread enough that it doesn't sell any more. The dealer has made loads of cash, but likely won't lose any customers, because he can just sell them a different drug instead. Even if he does lose customers, he can just move somewhere else where nobody's heard of him and start again. Now let's say that Pfizer intentionally puts fertilizer into their drugs: it won't get past initial testing. Let's say, for sake of argument, that it ''does'' get past initial testing, because someone has greased the wheels. Once people start dying the media will immediately grab hold. Since they intentionally put a dangerous product into their drug, they will get huge fines, lose most of their customers and respect, and likely will be completely shut down. Pfizer is too big a company to just take the money and run. There's also another angle: the drug dealer has a choice between risking arrest for dealing drugs, or risking an arrest for dealing lethal drugs. The law doesn't make much distinction, so he will do whichever one makes him the most money the fastest. Pfizer has a choice between selling drugs or risking punishment for selling lethal drugs. In this case the distiction is ''much'' greater, and they will be much more likely to avoid intentional harm to their customer. One last point about the safety of drugs: I'm not against heavily regulating them. Alcohol can be dangerous and addictive, but there are many rules and regulations concerning the distribution of alcohol. During prohibition if someone was poised by an illegal beer that had grown a bad yeast it was tough luck for them, they shouldn't have been breaking the law. If Coors poisons people because they are below legal standards, tough luck for them they are getting a big penalty. (I don't know if this actually happened during prohibition, but hopefully you can see my point that by legalizing, you can enforce quality standards that you wouldn't otherwise be able to control).
:::And with that whopper, I think I'm done for the night :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I think we waited until a bit too late to get this ball rolling. Just a few things, because I think we've both stated our positions relatively clearly.

:'''Economics''': I think we agree on the majority of these points. Welfare is just a slippery slope, and as long as there is a program implemented, you're going to have problems with it. There's no such thing as a perfect welfare system. The certification system is what I was talking about regarding paying a company to increase sales. It could work, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, I would trust government regulation more when it comes to my drugs and food.
:'''Foreign policy''': Of course we didn't ask for it, and you're right to an extent: it was actually the Taliban that we put into power after the Soviet Union left. Agreed that we have to finish what we started. Our mistake was just throwing the Taliban in there without staying and making sure that everything was hunky-dorey (yeah, we're both using technical terms). We're doing that in Iraq now; we're making sure the current government can fend for themselves.
:'''Abortion''': I think I'm done talking about this because you're exactly right. Both sides have excellent points, and there's no right and wrong in this discussion.
:'''Gun control''': Esoteric works fine here ;-). Automatic weapons are, for the most part, ''already'' banned. I'm not for banning anything, just for more checks before someone purchases a firearm. The Brady Bill was a good idea in theory: an automatic waiting period and background check for purchasing a firearm. I went to a lot of gun shows as a kid, and I know that it's all to easy to purchase a firearm. I just don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry buying a gun like they're going out buying a power tool.
:'''War on Drugs''': Yeah, I've gone over this one a lot too. Heroin was probably a bad example, and I'm not sure how I feel about marijuana. I disagree with Bugler's statement below that it causes mental disorders; well, maybe not disagree with, but alcoholics suffer from late-stage psychosis after a few years. If anything, ''that's'' what should be outlawed. Marijuana is non-addictive and non-fatal, so I wouldn't see a problem with legalizing. I went through a really bad time in my early years at college, and seeing what pot did to me ... I don't know, man. I really don't. I feel so much better now that I don't do any drugs (I barely even drink). I don't like the idea of having any drugs legalized, I guess. You're for it because you've never done, I'm against it because I have. :-)
:My apologies on the Pfizer thing. Like I said, it was really late, and I was searching. I think the lack of regulation and the danger of drugs is also a good deterrent for kids who are thinking about trying them. Smoking a joint is one thing, but cocaine and heroin are a completely different story. Those things can take a budding young mind and turn it to mush.

This is all extremely sensitive material, and I think we agree on the basis of all of these issues, just specifics. I'm really glad we got this all out in the open, though! You definitely kept your word on your user page.
[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:Keeping my word is what I do :) And duh on my part about al Queda / Taliban. I totally knew that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I hope you don't mind if I join in? Reading this, I have a few things I'd like to add.
* '''Foreign policy''': One of the ways that slavery was abolished was by Britain acting as the "world's policeman". That is, they declared slave-trading ships to be considered pirate ships, and therefore made slave traders subject to their navy. Saying that a country should keep out of things that are not its business may be okay up to a point, but when its righting a wrong, it ''is'' their business. Looking the other way when injustice is being done is to be part of that injustice. It's probably not that simple, admittedly, but allowing injustice to continue ''just because it's not your business'' is wrong. Not interfering ''for other reasons'' may be valid, but that would depend on those reasons.
* '''Abortion''': Abortion is murder (killing of an innocent human), pure and simple. The unborn child is unquestionably human, unquestionably alive, and unquestionably not part of his mother's body. That's solid facts and logic, not just what I "think and feel".
* '''Drugs''': I disagree that prohibition has never worked. From my reading many years ago (the books were borrowed, so I don't have them now), prohibition in the United States was a roaring success, even to the extent that prisons were being closed for lack of prisoners, as (alcohol-fuelled) crime was down. ''Regulating'' drugs rather than ''banning'' them is little more than playing with words. If you regulate drugs, you are really doing things like ''banning'' them to people under 18 years old, ''banning'' stronger versions in favour of weaker "safer" versions, ''banning'' them above a certain quantity per month, ''banning'' their sale without sales tax, or whatever. Every such "regulation" (partial ban) is potential black market. Although smoking (tobacco) is strongly discouraged here in Oz these days (and use is way down), it is still legal, yet black market trade in cigarettes has still been known to happen. And remember that such drugs (marijuana, heroin, etc.) are banned ''for a reason'', that being that they are ''inherently'' dangerous (some more than others). So by legalising and regulating them, you're basically ''encouraging'' people to take stuff that's dangerous! How is that in any way the responsible thing to do?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Jumping in...
* '''Abortion''': Is murder... I don't see how anyone can deny the fact that the baby is alive. As for exceptions for the health of the mother, They are also wrong. It is wrong to kill one person because it ''might'' help save another person's life. You say "''there's no right and wrong in this discussion''", I guess you believe that the baby is not a human life until it is born? Can you support that belief? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since the water is warm... I don't feel that the evidence is conclusive about when, exactly, life begins. Is the "morning after" pill murder? I don't know. And yes, I know that "life begins at conception" to some, but I have no reason to know that it's true. As for no exceptions for the life of the mother - we make plenty of decisions without absolute certainty. If the medical expert "on the scene" says that a pregnancy is jeopardizing the life of the mother, I think you have to respect that. How many other medical diagnoses do we overrule because there exists a possibility that the doctor is wrong?

::Note that I'm no fan of abortion, HelpJazz's position is very similar to mine (re: last option, not counseled, etc...).

::On drugs (Hi, Philip!), I'd suggest that you refresh yourself on the Prohibition material you read. Alcohol-fueled crime wasn't much reduced, it just became other kinds of crime (theft, murder, "white collar" crimes involving illegal trafficking) because of the burgeoning bootlegging. On the plus side (ahem), we got the Kennedys.

::And, I disagree that legalizing and regulating something is the same as encouraging it, except in the most arcane of definitions. If encouragement is only binary in an encouragement-discouragement model (you must either do one or the other), then I suppose it's true, but it leaves out so many gray areas. Does the government actively encourage everything that isn't illegal, then? I like you too much to use ridiculous illustrations, but I think we can both think of things that aren't smiled upon but are nevertheless not illegal.

::Lastly, somewhere else Bugler says something about mental illness and marijuana. It may be well-documented, but it's not well-documented as being any more significant than a host of other activities that are considered perfectly legal. If we're going to embrace conservative ideals here let's start with allowing people real freedom; if the argument against marijuana is self harm, as opposed to harm to others, that's their tough luck if they want to smoke it. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

First, responses to Philip:
*Foreign policy: I agree, in today's world you can't have strict isolationism. However, I think the utmost care must be taken when deciding to take action; far too often, it seems, actions are only taken if they have an immediate, personal benefit, and long term consequences are shoved under the rug. Though I would like to point out with your example that it was partially due to British expansionism that there was a slave trade anyway.
*Drugs: I can't say I've ever read anything about prisons being closed. I do know that prohibition helped cement organized crime organizations, though, and they did their fair share of filling up the prisons. The "banning" vs "regulating" argument is really semantics. Banning isn't the same thing as regulating and doesn't have the same effects. I'm not against banning for banning's sake, I'm against it for the many reasons I've stated before. Also I don't agree that (a) drugs were necessarily banned because they were dangerous and (b) that something being dangerous is reason enough to ban something. As Az said, if someone wants to harm themselves, more power to them.

Then Aziraphale: as usual, if I didn't know that you couldn't be me, I would accuse you of being me :)

And now to Philip and Tim: this is probably going to end badly, so I hope you can agree to disagree on this point here. By "no right or wrong answer" I mean that the lines in the sand are drawn by where you believe "human life" starts. If person A says that human life begins at conception, and person A says that human life begins at the time at which the fetus could support itself outside of the womb, how can you prove who is right? "What is human life" is a philosophical or religious question, not a scientific one.

Compare to free trade: you can argue "free trade works because of the invisible hand" and someone else can argue "free trade doesn't work because of the greed of comanies". Then you can go and look at examples of free trade and determine through study "did the invisible hand work?" It either did or didn't work.

I agree with both of you that sometime between conception and birth it is considered murder, but I don't know where to draw the line. As such, I don't have a strong conviction either way, certainly not strong enough to impose my desires on others through coercive force (in this case, the law). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

: If you are not sure when life begins, and we are talking about human life here, isn't the safest approach to keep alive what might be human life rather than kill what might be human life?

: I put "alcohol-fuelled" in brackets because I wasn't talking about just alcohol-fuelled crime. Crime overall was reduced; the reference to "alcohol-fuelled" was to explain that it would have been the alcohol-fuelled component that made the main difference. Bootlegging, although it existed, was not that widespread so as to wipe out all the gains. And by the way, this was despite prohibition being very poorly enforced. Prohibition laws were made under the taxation laws, so it was up to the taxation agents, not the police, to enforce!

: No, the government doesn't ''actively'' encourage everything that it doesn't ban, but something being legal gives it de-facto legitimacy, ''especially'' when it was banned then becomes legal.

: As for people being allowed to harm themselves if they want to, there are two problems with this. First, advocates of such usually will draw a line between harm of self and harm of others. That is, if it affects others, it's not okay, but if it only affects the person doing it, that's his business. However, self-harm (suicide or other serious self-harm) almost ''always'' affects others, who are at the very least saddened, and more likely distraught, perhaps suffer hardship, and may follow the example. Second, self-harm assumes that a person has the ''right'' to harm themselves. But if we belong to God (and as a Christian I believe that He made us, so we all belong to Him), and if He hasn't given us the right to harm ourselves (as I believe to be the case), then we ''have no right'' to self-harm. The "right" to self-harm presumes an atheistic viewpoint. Laws that therefore recognise the right to self-harm (e.g. euthanasia laws, allowing people to take dangerous drugs if they wish) are laws that impose the views of an atheistic religion on society.

: As far as banning not having the same affects as regulating is concerned, I pointed out why they are similar, but in response all I got was denial, not an argument.

: "What is a human life" may be partly a philosophical or religious question, but it ''is'' also a scientific question. New Scientist, which is pro-abortion, was forced to admit:
{{QuoteBox|The task force finds that the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.
[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4851]}}
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

===Hi, Philip===
(giving a sub-heading for navigation purposes if nothing else)

''"If you are not sure when life begins, and we are talking about human life here, isn't the safest approach to keep alive what might be human life rather than kill what might be human life?"''

Indeed, that might be the safest choice, and it's one that I'm inclined to make; see my (and HJ's) comments above about what we would personally counsel. Given that I believe that there's uncertainty, however, I think it's inappropriate for the State to intervene. I'm technically only speaking for myself now, although from this and other conversations I think HJ will broadly agree with me: this conversation is far less about what is right and wrong and far more about what I believe the State should be involved in. From intervention v. isolation, prohibition v. free-ish access to drugs, abortion, and on down the line, I believe there should be a '''much''' more stringent threshold to cross than is currently accepted before the State gets in the game. For example, I agree with you that British intervention helped stifle the slave trade; I also think that "stopping the slave trade" is far more important (and thus worthy, and thus appropriate) than, say, making sure a particular political leader is, or is not, in power. There may be an exception here and there (yes, yes, Mr. Hitler, sit down, we see you) but they are exactly that - exceptions.

A minor point about bootlegging, more as a fun aside than any serious debate: don't forget, when assessing the crime spike from Prohibition, to include alcohol production / consumption for personal use that never made it into the movies. There's a reason that there's a stereotype of rural folk with their stills out in the woods. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:13, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, we are again in agreement. Philip, that quote sounds interesting, but unfortunately the original article from which it is pulled is unavailable without a subscription. I would really like to see the whole context before I change my whole worldview, you know? I'll try to see if I can find it through school, but I'm not sure what kind of alumni access I have. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well that's the last time I take a few days off. I failed to see what broke loose when we started this, Jazz! Seriously though, I'm glad to see this sparked a great discussion. It's really interesting to see how different people view these issues just because there are so many different schools of thought. I think all 5 of the parties involved here agree that in personal counsel, abortion is wrong.
::On a side note, should we move this to a debate space, maybe? Perhaps some other editors would get involved! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:40, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::It's your page, HelpJazz, so obviously you can do what you want with it, but if you're soliciting opinions can I vote "no?" I'm enjoying the relatively excellent signal-to-noise ratio you've got going at the moment. Put this on a debate page and the screeds will start pouring in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT) ''<-My 2 cents... oh, and hi Bohdan! They're back. :)''
::::I dunno. If it's on a debate page I likely won't really pay attention to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Regarding government involvement, I do tend to lean toward what you are saying Arizaphale. However, there are two different situations here. If something is not illegal (e.g. taking a particular drug, or an abortion), then perhaps the government ought to be slow to get involved by restricting or banning it. The government ''not'' restricting or banning does not really provide any sort of endorsement of it either. Although this may not always be true if they are ''implicitly'' supporting it already by, for example, taxing it. The other situation is where the government has already restricted or banned it. In ''this'' case, decriminalising/unbanning/unrestricting it is sending a strong message that the thing (drug, abortion, etc.) is acceptable; that there's nothing wrong with it. Now there may be some way that a government can remove itself from being involved without providing tacit endorsement, but it's difficult to think of a way. Just by way of example, one way would be to decriminalise it but not tell anyone that they'd done so! But of course, both because government actions like this are not done in secret, and because there are always interested parties watching, it won't take long until this decriminalisation done on the quiet becomes very public, so that idea doesn't really work.

But then there's the question of the harm that it does. I mean, if it's accepted that murder is something ''very'' wrong, then surely it's proper for a government to take the safe course. I recall reading (many years ago now) about a medicinal drug that the government banned simply because test on mice had shown that it could cause problems at times. The drug was already being used (by humans) and was proving beneficial. Yet the government banned this ''beneficial'' medicinal drug because of the ''small possibility'' of bad side effects. Was that a case of the government getting too involved? Perhaps. But if that's any sort of precedent, then all abortions should be banned just on the ''possibility'' (and I believe it's more than a possibility; I'm just being hypothetical) that the fetus is actually a living human being. (And just in case anyone reads too much into what I'm saying, I agree with Tim above that the ''one'' acceptable circumstance in which an abortion is okay is when it really gets down to a choice between the baby's life and the mother's life. That is, if one or the other is going to die anyway, there's nothing wrong with choosing that it will be the baby and not the mother that dies.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip,

:First, allow me to break my arm patting myself on my back - I just *knew* that was going to be your response re: deregulating/banning things that were once regulated or banned. It is the one reasonable argument for keeping the things regulated/banned, I agree. Now we're getting into "real" politics vs. political theory, I think. The high-minded Aziraphale says "if you take that stance then government can never correct a mistaken over-regulation, which is negative and self-limiting," but the realist Aziraphale has to concede that you have a point. I do think the "we're legalizing it but still thinks its a bad idea" message isn't that hard to get out in the specific situation we're discussing, though; after all these years, and with all the talk it would generate, it's hard for me to fathom someone NOT realizing the government's position, should it legalize marijuana.

:Re: the mouse-drug point above, I think that ''was'' a bad precedent, and wouldn't want to see it applied to other situations, abortion-related or otherwise. But that's just me.

:One point of clarification, on Tim's behalf - I don't think he ''does'' accept the "health of the mother" stipulation to allowing abortions, as I read his comments. I still take your meaning, of course.

:I think this conversation over the last few days illustrates HelpJazz's abortion statement better than his simply saying it. After all, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that none of the people currently participating in this conversation are witless or unreasonable, or stupid for that matter, and yet - one or more of us simply has to be wrong on the abortion issue. Tim believes that it's a life from the absolute beginning, and any abortion, for any reason, is morally wrong. You believe mostly the same thing, although you allow for the "health of the mother" stipulation. HelpJazz and I are both against abortion in our own minds, but don't agree that a human life has been created from the first division of cells in the womb. I think that's the climate of the debate in microcosm. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

::If that's your (and Jazz's) stance, then shouldn't you clarify ''when'' life begins? It's been a while since my OB classes, but I'm pretty sure the fetus's heart begins beating between 5-6 weeks gestation. At 6 weeks, the brain starts to develop and so on and so forth. Is your stance that life begins at the end of the first trimester? Second? Third? Birth? Adolescence? I'm not trying to be snarky (well, with '''adolescence''' I was) or presumptuous, but I do think that clarification is necessary if you're taking that stance. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:15, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, first - I'm absolutely *not* speaking for HelpJazz now because this is not something I can infer from any previous conversation with him. My own answer is: no, I absolutely shouldn't clarify when life begins. Why would I know the first thing about it? You say it's been awhile since your OB classes; well, I've ''never'' had any OB classes. So, I'm more than willing to be led by experts like yourself.

:::The problem, to me, quickly becomes: on many subjects I feel like I've found experts I can be led by. On abortion (and it's not only abortion, but that's what we're talking about) I've found MANY experts who seem reasonable and who present evidence that, to my untrained eye, seems acceptable, and yet they all want to lead me in different directions. This is similar to what I said above, about reasonable people holding different opinions; reasonable experts have come to different conclusions.

:::I'm going to back up, again, and point out that my only contention is a political one - the vagueness in the issue (which, yes of course I concede, not everyone believes exists) doesn't offer up a clear, unmitigated call for State intervention. I will continue to counsel against abortion; that's not empty rhetoric, I've shepherded a friend in the last decade through a very difficult pregnancy that led to an adoption. But, I don't think the State belongs in this discussion. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:47, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Very far from an expert. I wasn't asking about your opinion on state intervention; I'm asking your opinion on where life begins. Sure, we all follow experts to a certain extent, but I feel that in the long run, experts are merely there to give us all of the evidence they've worked so hard and for so long to obtain. They gather that evidence to make an argument for one side or the next, sure, but in the end we have to take that evidence and turn it into a well-thought out conclusion of our own and support it with rational arguments.

::::Everyone comes to different conclusions based on the evidence we obtain, and I'm thankful every day for that. Quite frankly, if we didn't have disagreements, I can't think of a many people that are really worth talking to! If you're not comfortable disclosing your opinion, I accept that as well. As I said, I have no intentions of offending you. We can keep the State out of the discussion for as long as you'd like. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:01, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Hi Jeffrey,

:::::I'm sorry, we've apparently bumped into a mis-communication. You aren't bothering me by bringing up the State intervention issue; it is, in fact, the only part of this issue that I have strong feelings about. (This was a politics discussion, right?) I have not "take[n] that evidence and turn[ed] it into a well-thought out conclusion." I do not have, nor do I expect to have, a conclusion as to when life begins. I have absolutely no training on the issue, and I won't ever get it - there are only so many hours in the day and I have other things that matter more to me. Further, my own partner and I have settled our reproductive affairs to our own satisfaction, so I don't have any personal investment in the issue. The best I can do is intuit which answers I discard as being extreme or unreasonable. I think a fetus is actually a soggy baby well before birth, but I don't think it's a soggy baby when it's 2 cells that just split from 1 cell.

:::::I appreciate that you want to discuss the issue, not berate someone who disagrees with you. :) However, I've actually worked very hard in my life to get to a place where I'm comfortable with uncertainty. (By "comfortable," I partly mean "not paralyzed to inaction.") I accept the possibility of being wrong, but I think it's a good thing when a person says "I don't know" rather than stand on an under-formed opinion. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:57, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::On that note, I strongly recommend we create a page called ''Soggy Baby Syndrome'' and redirect it to fetus. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:01, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::To catch up a bit: Philip, you are probably right about the appearance of endorsement in the political reality of legalizing drugs -- which is another reason we should think hard before banning something. I admit that I care a whole lot more about political theory than in political reality; "radicals" who get caught up too much in political reality either get fed up or violent (or both), but I'm happy all day long in the land of theory. While I would like to think that there is a way for the government to decriminalize without endorsment (regulation or taxation, possibly), I can't say for sure whether they would be able to do it successfully. (Ha! That's assuming anything the government does is really a sucess.)
:::::::To latch on to Az (again), abortion is one of those issues in which I just don't know the right answer, and no clear answer presents itself. Tim and Philip (and maybe Jeffrey?) are guided by their religion, and I'm, well, I'm Methodist. I'm sure we have an official stance on abortion, but I'm also sure that there won't in a million years be a discussion about abortion in my church (and not just because the average member age is somewhere around 65). I (and likely Az) tend to look to science, but as he mentioned, science doesn't agree or have a definative answer. Science tells us when the heart starts beating, when the toenails grow, and so on, but I ''just don't know'' when humanity starts. I know it's after conception (becuase menstration isn't murder) and I know it's before birth, but for me, that's all I need to know. Even if I wake up tomorrow and decide that human life starts once there are at least 32 cells, I'm not going to go to pro-life rallies and I'm not going to bomb abortion clinics. (And the opposite is true if I wake up tomorrow and decide that life starts at 26 weeks -- I'm not going to give money to Planned Parenthood or call pro-lifers woman-haters). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Just a little clarification from Jazz's edit. I'm an agnostic, though looking over my posts I can understand where you would infer that I'm religious. Pro-life /= religious. I stay away from the term "pro-life" for that very reason. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I see a young woman say, "Oh, man. I had one too many 2 weeks ago and now I'm pregnant! I know! I'll get an abortion!" My big argument is that it's ''NOT NOT NOT'' birth control—well in the literal sense it is, but my point remains. Sometimes it's medical necessity, and I accept and encourage a choice in that situation.<nowiki></clarification></nowiki> [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:It was just a guess, I didn't think you had said anywhere that you were religious. I ''absolutely'' agree that abortion is not to be relied upon as birth control! Condoms and abortion are not interchangeable! I'm just not sure how to ''legislate'' that, which is why I err (for now, at least) on the side of not legislating. 14:40, 25 September 2008 (EDT)~

(unindent)By the by, I'm sorry if "soggy baby" crossed the line, seriously. If it's any consolation, it's kind of a complement because I felt comfortable enough in this conversation to use the idiomatic style I'm used to in my private life, rather than running everything through a filter. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:08, 25 September 2008 (EDT) ''<-Seems to have hi-jacked HelpJazz's talk page... :p''

:I thought it was hilarious, personally. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:18, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to think that the "we're legalising it but still think it's a bad idea" message wasn't that hard to get out, but I suspect that it would not be easy. For example, if it was done in isolation (instead of as a large package or series of such changes), then critics would (probably quite rightly) point out that if the government is doing it just for this particular law (whatever that law was) and not for a whole host of other things, their credibility is suspect and despite their claims, they must ''really'' believe that ''this particular'' whatever is okay to legalise but so many other things aren't.

Rereading Tim's message, I see that I've either read a bit too much into it or I'm thinking of something he wrote elsewhere. I don't now know which. But I would also point out that I was talking not about the ''health'' of the mother, but the ''life'' of the mother. I also point out that Tim said that it's "wrong to kill one person because it ''might'' help save the another person's life" (his emphasis), the implication being that a legitimate exception is if it ''will'' save the mother's life. So I still believe that he and I probably agree on this, but concede that I can't claim that as a certainty based on his post above.

HelpJazz says that I am guided by my religion, and whilst that's correct in a sense, I'd say it's not correct in the sense he's thinking. First, let me point out that one of the definitions of "[[religion]]" is a "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In that sense ''everyone'' is guided by their "religion" (set of core beliefs). As for being guided by my religious affiliation (I currently attend a Baptist church), then no, you are incorrect, and I couldn't even tell you with any certainty what my denomination's stance on abortion is. I am guided primarily by my "religious" beliefs that murder is wrong, and by various bits of evidence that the baby is a living human from the moment of conception.

The bit about menstruation is a red herring, as menstruation occurs when there is ''no'' conception.

Getting back to government involvement and when the baby is human, would you (Arizaphale and HelpJazz) agree that governments ''should'' be involved to the extent of making murder (killing of an innocent human) a crime? And would you agree, given that you appear to agree that abortion is wrong ''sometime'' before birth, that abortion ''can'' be murder (depending on how advanced the baby is), or at least that government should ban it ''at some stage''? Because if you do, then you are left with the problem that even if ''you'' are not prepared to nominate how far advanced the fetus is before abortion is wrong, the government must decide that when they legislate against abortion. And once they make that decision, they are de-facto conveying the message that, prior to that time, it is okay. Thus giving early abortions tacit ''approval'', despite no clear evidence that early abortions are ''not'' murder. That is, they would not be staying out of the issue of whether early abortions are murder; they would be getting ''involved in'' that issue simply by setting a cut-off point for their legislation. And if, by some chance, you think it's okay for a government to make murder but not abortion a crime, why would it be okay to make it a crime to kill a human one day after being born but not one day before?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:05, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to answer your very long reply with a very short one, because I'm lazy. I read once from someone (a libertarian, though that's mostly irrelevant) that abortion should only be illegal after the point at which modern science can reliably sustain a baby outside of the womb. Currently that falls somewhere around 26 weeks (I think) so that's an appropriate cuttoff. ''For now'', at least. I think I would be satisfied with a law to such effect (with exceptions for the life of the mother and probably some others), because it gives you a (somewhat) measurable cuttoff point, without having to define what constitutes a human.
:Again, I really don't see a law as endorsement. In other words, I don't think, if you went from 0 abortion laws to one that said abortion is legal after X weeks, that you would see a substantial increase in the number of people having abortions. Yes, there might be people who change their mind based on the law, but these people are most likely to be on the fence anyway.
:One comment about the "one day before" analogy. For one, yes I'm against killing a baby one day before it would be born, but there *is* a fundamental difference between a baby that's within the womb and one that's without. You can't carry your "one day before" analogy back forever, so even there you have to draw a line somewhere. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:47, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Using the point at which modern science can reliably sustain a baby outside the womb as the basis for making abortion illegal seems an odd sort of logic. If the basis for making abortion illegal is that it's wrong to kill innocent humans, then how can it be okay to kill babies of a certain age today, but not okay to kill babies of the same age in a few years' time when medical care has improved? As for it providing a "measurable cutoff point", there is no exact figure (the ability of science to keep a baby alive depends on many variables), and the most obvious "measurable cutoff point", and one that is not variable or subject to future change, is conception. And no, you can't carry the "one day before" analogy back forever. You can only carry it back to conception, the obvious place to "draw the line". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

===Hi, Philip II===
(more ease of navigation)

My own difficulty with the argument you're making at the moment is that the State draws distinctions between things all the time. ''This much'' is larceny, ''that much'' is theft. ''This much'' marijuana is trafficking and illegal, ''that much'' is personal use and ok. ''This'' is murder, ''that'' is vehicular manslaughter, and ''that other one'' is negligent homicide and barely a crime. So no, I don't think it's logically inevitable that since a fetus ''could'' be a baby, it ''must'' be treated like a baby, and therefore since the State prohibits murder it must prohibit abortion. The State doesn't treat all crimes equally, and in fact it can look at two events that, boiled down to their essences, are identical and still make a distinction between the two. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT) ''<-using up my italics quota for the month...''
: I don't believe that I've said that a government is not able to define a cut-off point. Rather, I've said (or implied) that there is no obvious cut-off point that stands up to scrutiny, and that any cut-off point the government decides on is de-facto approval of abortions before that cut-off point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, no, you didn't explicitly say that... and now I feel like we're getting down to the inevitable hair-splitting phase of any abortion discussion... but what I did take your argument to mean was that you didn't feel there was any meaningful way to determine where the cutoff should be and, therefore, a cutoff cannot be reasonably established and, double therefore (although you don't strike me as a "double therefore" kinda guy), abortion should illegal from conception.

::My response to what I think you're saying is (unfortunately repetitively) that I don't intuitively accept that a fetus is a baby from conception, but I don't know when it *is* one, and one reason I'm not in politics or law is precisely because I don't think I should be called upon to rule on when a fetus is a baby. The fact that it's hard to imagine most politicians making that sort of judgment merely buttresses my despair of politics in this day and age.

::One specific point, regarding "standing up to scrutiny": that's one of the key reasons I think the abortion question will never be settled. Whose scrutiny? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

==Drugs==
''At a minimum marijuana should be legalized; nobody has ever died from it''

It is well documented that marijuana use can lead to mental disorder, and it is highly likely that it is a contributing factor to suicide. A useful point to add to [[Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?]], so thanks for that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:It's an interesting article, and I'd like to read the study for myself so I can properly digest it. However it doesn't change my stance. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:Also I should point out, since you used this example in the essay, that many liberals don't support the legalization of drugs since they are dangerous and everyone should live in a bubble so that they don't die earlier. These same liberals want to ban [[trans fats]] and [[high fructose corn syrup]]. It's definitely more of an issue with libertarians and advocacy groups (such as LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
:Oh which reminded me of a whole bunch more reasons against the WoD Jeffrey, but I won't bore you with them :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Capitalisation of 'intelligent design' ==

I see that you've been changing "Intelligent Design" to "intelligent design". I'm not sure that this is necessarily the best thing to do, but then I don't know what ''is'' the best thing to do. Granted "intelligent design" is not a proper noun, but it is the name of a concept and movement, so leaving it as just two ordinary words doesn't seem right either. There is difference between saying that "a plant exhibits characteristics of intelligent design" and "Dembski is a proponent of intelligent design". The former is fine. The latter makes it sound like Dembski favours things being intelligently designed, rather than what it really means, that he favours the ''idea'' that living things ''have been intelligently designed''. As I see it, there's three possible ways to distinguish the different uses of the term. One is to capitalise it, as the "name" of a concept and movement. Two is to italicise it, as a special use of the words. Three is to put it in quotes, also as a special use of the words. The quotes option, to me, seems a bit too close to "scare quotes". Italicising it to me seems to be stressing or emphasising it, which is not the desire either. Also, its use is quite common in many places, which means that italicising it or putting it in quotes on the basis of it being a ''special'' use of the words hardly seems appropriate. Which leaves capitalisation, which is the one that I've tended to go for, although I'm not totally comfortable with that either, probably simply because it's ''not'' a proper noun. Perhaps there's some other approach that I've not thought of?

Comments?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:Well, the reason that I did it is that I saw the page on the article renaming project page. I don't think we can capitalize it, because then it looks like we are trying to make it more superior to things like evolutionism and creationism, which are rarely capitalized. Italicising is probably ok (like one would do for a word in another language). In my opinion, if you wikilink the first instance of the word, then it lets the reader know that it is a special term, but without giving it any special meaning. Similar to how certain legal terms (I can't think of any off the top of my head) are wikilinked; you might not otherwise know that the seeminly simple phrase was actually a legal doctrine, but once you see the wikilink you realize it is special.
:I'm open to whatever you think is best. I will say that, maybe you were consistent in the way that you capitalized "intelligent design" depending on the usage, but the community as a whole just sort of capitalized it willy-nilly. Many times I would even see only the first word capitalized, as if it were starting a new sentence! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:42, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:: It's about time I replied to this! I don't accept that capitalising it means that we consider it superior to evolutionism or creationism, but I see your point that it might ''appear'' that way. And I hadn't thought about your point that wikilinking the first use indicates that you are using it in a special way; that's a good point. Anyway, although I'm not totally convinced that having it lower case is the best way to go, at the moment no other way seems to be better, so I'll leave the matter there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:41, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Right, I didn't mean that we ''think'' it is superior, only that it ''appears'' that we think it is superior. I used that trick once to convince a professor to let me in to his class. I wanted to pursue a Political Science Minor, but my chemical engineering major didn't allow for many openings, so I had to take his class that semester. Subtle, nay? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:59, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

==DessipF==

I noticed your edit to [[Fish and chips]]. DessipF isn't just a "suspicious editor", but a banned editor. See the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DessipF block log]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah I know. The repitition just made for a more poetic edit comment. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Defection==

Your edit comment to this entry suggests that [[User:Malakker]] may be a parodist, yet you did nothing about it. Why? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:44, 28 September 2008 (EDT) P.S. He did seem to have one thing right: many of the prominent defectors in the Cold War from the US to USSR seem to have been homosexual. It's a bit too common to be attributable to coincidence... I'll do some research.
:I looked at the block log and Joaquin had blocked him for three days. I haven't looked at many more of his contributions because I went to take a nap :) I'll chack the rest of them out and see if he needs to be blocked longer.
:It's possible that some of the defectors were homosexual (actually, it's definite), but I would also want to see how many defectors that went the other way were homosexual. Also, how many there were makes a difference; he just said "most" which is probably not true. I won't stop you from doing your own research though :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::First bit of research done, but now you've got the idea of a nap floating in my head and... zzzzzzzzzz -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:11, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::He he he :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT) PS: I've looked at his contributions, and, though he contributed some real edits, they were pretty hard to distinguish from the silly or borderline parodist ones. I think I'll block him for longer.

== "Malakker" ==

of course, you do know that "malakka" is a Greek word for onanism...[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Oh that settles it then. Thanks for the heads up. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Palin article ==

Thanks! I only saw the one edit, and then when I realized I only got the one, I couldn't figure out how to get the others. It's weird that no one else was reverting though. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:No problem. If there are a bunch of edits in a row that are vandalism you can look at the history and click on an older version of the article. Then when you click "edit" and then save the page it will clear out the rest of it. I think there's not a lot of people on right now, and with a lot at once it got a little confusing. I'm pretty methodical about it :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:23, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! I knew how to do multiple "undo"s, but I didn't know how to undo previous edits after I'd already undone one. Haha, that was not the best way of explaining that, so I'll just say thanks again and leave it at that. :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think I get what you mean. I have to admit I don't entirely get the undo thing if there's more than one edit. That's why I do the brute force method I described. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:31, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I just wanted to say, good job you two. That was quite vandalism spree. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT) P.S. Up from my nap now, but can't be on long.
:Ha ha ha! I guess it's partially my fault then, since I enticed you with the prospect of a nice nap! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==For the good of the project==
and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
:Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
:It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that ''I'' have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have ''real'' work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Template:lowercase ==

I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it ''always'' correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:<s>I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like <nowiki>{{CURRENTDAY}}</nowiki>. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.</s>

:This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: ''This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser).'' So we should be fine. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brokeback==

You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> a user again! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> anyway? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 this], for example), counts as an outside link. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Now ''those'' I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HelpJazz&diff=next&oldid=519768 test]. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Vote McCain==
Vote McCain!!! [[Fry2000]]

== Thank you! ==

Thanks for the block! [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:I do what I can :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

==Ohio==
Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nope. Never even visited. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== addition article ==

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Blocked==
When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out
:I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
::Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. [[User:NateE|NateE]][[User talk:NateE| Let Us Communicate]] 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit==
Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for defending me ==

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see [[creation week]]). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that [[creation week]] has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps ''he'' is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused ''me'' and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be '''censured''' by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-10-28T13:52:21Z

JulianAdderley: /* Thanks for defending me */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T13:06:50Z

JulianAdderley: /* Thank you */ new section

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

==Refutations==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Thinker...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.
:: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
:: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness ==

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

== Bat counterexample ==

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

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

The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."
1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.
2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven.
3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

== Some Comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness (2) ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

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

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

::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].
::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

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

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

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

== Beauty ==

The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.

So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.

However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?

Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)

However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)

Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.

::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?

'''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.

As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
: Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: No, Shakespeare did not say precisely that, but then neither did Hume nor Franklin. Your point?
:::: No, Andy, I did not simply "seem to think" that evolution could explain the beauty in autumn foliage. I explained why your argument was invalid, and you've done nothing to answer that, instead simply stating without any substantiation that "it plainly can't". What was actually wrong with the argument that I put (and which Samd has repeated below)?
:::: And what does "the color arrangement arose before man" have to do with the debate?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Chromosome example==

The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

: Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses. And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

As Corry said, "random mutations" ''can'' be beneficial, even though that is (usually?) only in specific circumstances/environments. The claim that they can't be is one that leading creationists specifically say is wrong[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#mutations].

Samd is also correct that it is not beneficial ''overall'', but that doesn't make Andy's claim that it is "never" beneficial correct. And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-''losing'' mutations, whereas evolution requires information-''gaining'' mutations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Now I see the light. ''Beautiful autumn foliage'' is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)