Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-12-04T08:52:36Z

NikD: /* Pterosaurs */

== Giraffe neck ==
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)

If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. [[User:SSSmith|SSSmith]] 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
: Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
{{QuoteBox|"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.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 13 November 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)

:Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce ''in that environment'', that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).

:This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: If a bacteria has no ''information'' for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have ''gained'' this information! And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::: Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts. Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world? Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations. Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:::: So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
::::* "''Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations''":
::::* "''Mutations did supply it.''":
:::: You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from ''somewhere'', so you respond by saying that it came from ''mutations''!
:::: Yes, please give those example'''s''' of information-gaining mutations. Dawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any. Since then, I know of ''one'' disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's ''one'' when there should be ''many'', and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
:::: And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from. That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however. An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Down syndrome is caused by a genetic ''defect'', a ''loss'' of information, not an information-''gaining'' mutation.
:::::::: The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome. See the section on ''Measuring information'' in [[information#Measuring information|information]]. You are confusing the ''size of the genome'' with the ''amount of information''. That's like comparing chalk and cheese. As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes. So this information has to be ''added''. Even if the cell or bacteria loses ''other'' information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated ''somehow''. That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel. An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur. I believe it can be found [[Mutation|here]] with the gain of function examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21." This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)

The example in the [[information]] article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.

If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.

I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information. I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::Hmm. What is your metric for 'information'? Can you represent it formally (i.e. mathematically)? I ask because every well-defined metric for quantity of 'information' (such as used in signal processing), seems require more to encode three copies of a gene than two or one (at a minimum it requires at least an extra bit or two). It's very important to settle on ''specific'' definitions for quantification of 'information' before proceeding with assessments of relative changes. Shifting between specific definitions and metrics cause many problems. That was precisely the trouble that damaged many of Lee Spenter's claims about there being no increase in information from mutations (from his book _Not By Chance_) [http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0178.html American Scientific Association discussion -- Follow links from this post] (an organization of Christian professional scientists and engineers) and [http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm Discussion from Ian Musgrave].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!

:: What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation '''is''' the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::: JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was ''intelligently selected'' to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased. But why do you say it was not lost? The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''. You've not shown that the ''meaning'' was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with ''information''.
::: In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost? According to you, nothing! That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost! Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.
::::And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations.

::::Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was ''intelligently selected''...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know ''what'' to say to this.
::::To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work:
:::::''You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."''
::::What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks. You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man.
::::And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''." The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.
::::To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== 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)
:Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of [[liberals]] who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Right. After a while, the [[liberal]] nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it. Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== 'Chain of being' ==

RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Revisions==

I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.

1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.

2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.

3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).

4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.

I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::Common descent is not ''scientifically'' in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.

::The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!

::Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck ''valves'' of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! '''Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure!''' Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the ''hox'' complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.

::I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.

::Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is '''YES!''' That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.

::So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.

::If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::You said above ''"In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution"''. Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::::The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.

::::My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.

::::I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene'', to name just one source). The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.

:::Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.

:::So now we have the idea that natural selection ''favors adaptations which increase fitness''. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a ''natural'' selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.

:::I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?" What you said was this: ''"The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher."'' There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth. Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.

With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to ''Cameleopardus sp.'' has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the [[Scientific Method]]; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. ''he has to see the neck actually grow'', and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two. In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".

Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:
*At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
*At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong. If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
*At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.
That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees. That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks. Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.

The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.

:First off, science does not require ''direct'' observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.

:Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: '''scientists do not know'''. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.

:Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.

:Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.

:I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Typical evolutionist weaseling. What Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling". The point I made is simple. Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject. But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science. In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals. They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact. Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened. Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not. In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating. It either happened, or it didn't. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Some Items to Consider==
I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought. First off, subjective statements are not scientific. The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified. As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?” Number two has been shown it be false as well. During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system. I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively. Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially. Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck. Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions. The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level. So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps. Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus. This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin. Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly. Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state. Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum. Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already. Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis. Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership. The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other. Number 13 does not address this. Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above. Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems. I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells. Number 16 is misleading. The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false. Number 17 is also false. There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young. Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them. Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves. I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not. I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help. (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion) Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. [[User:MattS|MattS]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Discredited Examples==
Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page.
Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade:
1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function
2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'.
As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.

As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? [[User:MattS|MattS]] 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

==Pterosaurs==

Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: I've seen pictures of them pulling Santa's sleigh through the air, so you must be right!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:: Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, could you please not insult other people's conceptions?--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)

As the person who originally added the statement, I shall take all questions. [http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html Here] is a cite, I will put it in the article presently. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 14:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks PhilipV for the site. I would point out that it is only one researcher who makes this claim, and the comment section on the site even explains why it was flawed. To state that biologists do not believe that Pterosaurs could not fly is a mischaracterization of a single article. Now if there were several papers supporting the researcher's claim then that would be different. Perhaps saying "That a researcher made a recent claim" since the article is from this year there has not been much time for others to test the claim. Just to point out, there are physicians who still claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there will always be fringe interpretations of data.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Phillip, next time remember to site your reference. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 03:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-12-02T00:48:03Z

NikD: /* Discredited Examples */

== Giraffe neck ==
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)

If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. [[User:SSSmith|SSSmith]] 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
: Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
{{QuoteBox|"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.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 13 November 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)

:Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce ''in that environment'', that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).

:This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: If a bacteria has no ''information'' for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have ''gained'' this information! And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::: Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts. Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world? Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations. Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:::: So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
::::* "''Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations''":
::::* "''Mutations did supply it.''":
:::: You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from ''somewhere'', so you respond by saying that it came from ''mutations''!
:::: Yes, please give those example'''s''' of information-gaining mutations. Dawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any. Since then, I know of ''one'' disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's ''one'' when there should be ''many'', and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
:::: And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from. That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however. An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Down syndrome is caused by a genetic ''defect'', a ''loss'' of information, not an information-''gaining'' mutation.
:::::::: The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome. See the section on ''Measuring information'' in [[information#Measuring information|information]]. You are confusing the ''size of the genome'' with the ''amount of information''. That's like comparing chalk and cheese. As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes. So this information has to be ''added''. Even if the cell or bacteria loses ''other'' information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated ''somehow''. That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel. An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur. I believe it can be found [[Mutation|here]] with the gain of function examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21." This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)

The example in the [[information]] article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.

If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.

I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information. I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!

:: What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation '''is''' the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::: JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was ''intelligently selected'' to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased. But why do you say it was not lost? The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''. You've not shown that the ''meaning'' was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with ''information''.
::: In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost? According to you, nothing! That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost! Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.
::::And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations.

::::Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was ''intelligently selected''...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know ''what'' to say to this.
::::To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work:
:::::''You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."''
::::What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks. You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man.
::::And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''." The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.
::::To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== 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)
:Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of [[liberals]] who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Right. After a while, the [[liberal]] nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it. Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== 'Chain of being' ==

RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Revisions==

I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.

1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.

2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.

3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).

4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.

I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::Common descent is not ''scientifically'' in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.

::The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!

::Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck ''valves'' of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! '''Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure!''' Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the ''hox'' complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.

::I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.

::Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is '''YES!''' That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.

::So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.

::If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::You said above ''"In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution"''. Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::::The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.

::::My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.

::::I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene'', to name just one source). The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.

:::Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.

:::So now we have the idea that natural selection ''favors adaptations which increase fitness''. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a ''natural'' selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.

:::I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?" What you said was this: ''"The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher."'' There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth. Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.

With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to ''Cameleopardus sp.'' has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the [[Scientific Method]]; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. ''he has to see the neck actually grow'', and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two. In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".

Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:
*At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
*At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong. If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
*At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.
That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees. That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks. Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.

The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.

:First off, science does not require ''direct'' observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.

:Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: '''scientists do not know'''. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.

:Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.

:Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.

:I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Typical evolutionist weaseling. What Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling". The point I made is simple. Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject. But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science. In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals. They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact. Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened. Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not. In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating. It either happened, or it didn't. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

==Some Items to Consider==
I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought. First off, subjective statements are not scientific. The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified. As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?” Number two has been shown it be false as well. During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system. I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively. Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially. Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck. Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions. The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level. So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps. Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus. This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin. Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly. Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state. Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum. Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already. Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis. Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership. The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other. Number 13 does not address this. Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above. Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems. I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells. Number 16 is misleading. The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false. Number 17 is also false. There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young. Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them. Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves. I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not. I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help. (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion) Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. [[User:MattS|MattS]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Discredited Examples==
Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page.
Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade:
1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function
2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'.
As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.

As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? [[User:MattS|MattS]] 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

==Pterosaurs==

Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:God

2008-09-23T06:13:30Z

NikD: /* Neutrality */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

The bible is proof that god exists; it has historical accounts of people meeting god. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:10, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

:The argument against God's benevolence is severely flawed. It assumes that suffering serves no useful purpose and that a human society where God prohibits all suffering will necessarily be better than having suffering.
:Even reading the Book of Job won't be enough. You're going to need a doctorate or two in religious philosophy, etc., before you can seriously debate the Problem of Evil. --[[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::::He can certainly make it clearer. Every action we can observe today has an explanation independent of God, and the Bible is old enough that many believe it to be of dubious credibility in terms of the literal, physical events that took place. Consistent, verifiable, clear violations of the laws of physics (especially connected with a religious setting) would do much to convince many unbelievers. Nonetheless, God does not intervene in that way, and this is an important aspect of His character. [[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
::::: Sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery in there. Why does its age undermine its credibility? (Or are you suggesting that that's the view of many people, but not your view?) If there were ''consistent'' and ''verifiable'' (by means of repeatable tests) "violations" of the laws of physics, then surely those "violations" would indicate that we have the laws of physics wrong? And that they aren't really "violations" at all? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

* Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
:Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1

* If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
:Not intervening is not the same as not seeing

* If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
:Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?

* If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
:Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.

* And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
:Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light?

:Science states that is what occurs; it is a paradox. But when a paradox comes from science, which is limited, it is accepted. When it comes from God, who is not limited, it is fought.

If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked?

:The same reason parents will ask their children questions that they already know the answer to. It has more to do with the children than the parents doesn't it?

If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away,

:Free will

... and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake?

:Free will

Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent.

:I would disagree that the ability to create a nonsense argument means that omnipotence is impossible. By the same logic there is no such thing as infinity (a much easier argument), but infinity must exist for current secular positions on where our universe came from.

What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

:Yes he did. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:God

2008-09-23T06:10:46Z

NikD: /* Neutrality */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

The bible is proof that god exists; it has historical accounts of people meeting god. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:10, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

:The argument against God's benevolence is severely flawed. It assumes that suffering serves no useful purpose and that a human society where God prohibits all suffering will necessarily be better than having suffering.
:Even reading the Book of Job won't be enough. You're going to need a doctorate or two in religious philosophy, etc., before you can seriously debate the Problem of Evil. --[[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::::He can certainly make it clearer. Every action we can observe today has an explanation independent of God, and the Bible is old enough that many believe it to be of dubious credibility in terms of the literal, physical events that took place. Consistent, verifiable, clear violations of the laws of physics (especially connected with a religious setting) would do much to convince many unbelievers. Nonetheless, God does not intervene in that way, and this is an important aspect of His character. [[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
::::: Sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery in there. Why does its age undermine its credibility? (Or are you suggesting that that's the view of many people, but not your view?) If there were ''consistent'' and ''verifiable'' (by means of repeatable tests) "violations" of the laws of physics, then surely those "violations" would indicate that we have the laws of physics wrong? And that they aren't really "violations" at all? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

* Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
:Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1

* If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
:Not intervening is not the same as not seeing

* If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
:Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?

* If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
:Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.

* And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
:Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light?

:Science states that is what occurs; it is a paradox. But when a paradox comes from science, which is limited, it is accepted. When it comes from God, who is not limited, it is fought.

If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked?

:The same reason parents will ask their children questions that they already know the answer to. It has more to do with the children than the parents doesn't it?

If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away,

:Free will

... and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake?

:Free will

Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent.

:I would disagree that the ability to create a nonsense argument means that omnipotence is impossible. By the same logic there is no such thing as infinity (a much easier argument), but infinity must exist for current secular positions on where our universe came from.

What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

:Yes he did. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2008-09-19T12:18:04Z

NikD: /* How we differ from Wikipedia */

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


==Examples==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== contradiction in the definition ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<references/>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Archiving ==

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

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

==Democratic Party==

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

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

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

==American Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm afraid I have to correct you. In many public school systems, because of pressure from Conservative lobbies, parents' groups, and churches, students are not permitted to learn anything BUT absolute "right and wrong" morality. State textbook guidelines in some of the largest markets (Texas and California) mandate that stories in primary school readers are not permitted to portray children "in conflict with adults"<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375414824</ref>, facing "complicated moral problems", or issues "without a clear right or wrong answer". Liberal pressure groups insist that these lessons are presented secularly; the result (Diane Ravitch argues in the book that this post references) is a bland, Bowdlerized reading curriculum that young people find unrealistic and boring, but politically correct to suit both Liberal and Conservative censorists.

==Clinton==

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

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

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Another Example ==

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

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

== Catalog or informative article? ==

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

==Public Schools==

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Heading edit==

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

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

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

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

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

We don't need your liberal bias here, and in any case you are compering apples with oranges. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 08:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Read My Lips==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberals and Deceit==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Piltdown Man ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Umm, right ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

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

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

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

==Examples of deceit==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Inherit the Wind==

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

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

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

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

==John Edwards==

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

== Changes ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

== Jacob example ==

Is there any reason for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=next&oldid=512709 this revert] in particular? I don't see why the example of Jacob isn't a reasonable example of how deceit can land you in trouble. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]]

==Huckabee and Wayne DuMond==

Doesn't this classify as deceit? He vehemently denied any involvement in DuMond's release, but tantamount evidence shows otherwise, and he still denies it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Examples ==

When possible, we want prominent examples of deceit where it is evident the individual knew what they were doing without question. So Huckabee would not be a good example, as it is unclear that he directly talked with the women or had reviewed their paperwork. Subordinates often handle much of that work and how things are presented to the governor. If a person is directly responsible, then that is different. Bill Clinton wagging his finger on TV while he talked about Monica Lewinsky is direct involvement where he obviously knew what he was doing. (In this case it was decided at an earlier time not to include that example in this article, so I am using it for display purposes only.) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:You might be right, but there's really no evidence to support that he didn't know anything about it. At a minimum, he was dishonest about disclosing the records:
::"Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
::...But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive ."
:And this seems to suggest two-way correspondence from Huckabee himself:
::"The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee."
:I don't think we can' write this off so easily, especially when there are really weak cases, like the Michael Moore example. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Huckabee knew what he was doing - he took the parole board into a private meeting and pushed for DuMond's release. Victims sent letters, and he ignored them. He still denies having no involvement in DuMond's release, however, which is deceit. If you'd like, I'll search for multiple sources. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed this article closely and I can see it has changed over time. Our general philosophy was to note strong examples with an understanding that too many examples would water down the article itself. A choice was also made to be careful with politicians, as a case can be made for almost anyone that they were deceitful, except in the case of undeniable evidence of purposeful deceit. So questions I would have with Huckabee would be in the why arena. Are we saying the man purposely wanted to get a rapist out of prison with the knowledge he was likely to rape again? And that somehow the parole board agreed? I would imagine that based on the information presented that it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time or else he - and the board - would not have made that decision. You'll also see that I removed reference to deceit for another politician, as I believe the reference failed to merit inclusion based upon the same standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree with you in principal. I think I've said before (and if not said, I've at least thought it very hard) that there shouldn't be a list at all for a multitude of reasons. But since we have one, I think this might be a good one to go on it. I reread the article and discovered that apparently the reason that Huckabee wanted the prisoner released was that it was a major issue with his conservative voterbase, who thought that the charges were trumped up and that the victim was related to Bill Clinton (a distant cousin). According to [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html this] article that I just found, Huckabee himself did actually ask the parole board to release the prisoner. Or his aide could be lying, but there's no evididence for that either.

:So do whatever you think is right, Learn together. It sounds like I'm committed on keeping this example in, but really I just want to make sure it gets a fair read, lest it look like we are censoring conservative examples of deceit (and I completely doubt that's what you are trying to do here!!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Wig

2008-09-18T09:50:27Z

NikD:

[[Image:The Wig Maker 1889.jpg|right]]

A '''wig''' is an artificial covering of [[hair]], like a toupee or hairpiece. It could be used for political, aesthetic, stylistic, cultural or religious reasons. The 'hair' can be natural or synthetic.

== See also ==

*[[Cell]]

[[Category:Dictionary]]