Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2014-01-25T23:40:19Z

OconnorM: /* AbuseFilter */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher ==

[[User:RudrickBoucher]] was blocked for '''two years''' for breaking the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARudrickBoucher 90/10 rule]. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]] encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Page protect requests==
What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

== We should be nicer ==

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV
11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-[[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]] 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Libertarians ==

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

==Mediawiki features==
Wondering if these features are implemented here:
*<nowiki><categorytree></nowiki>
*page transclusion, e.g.:
:{{Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members}}
Thanks, [[User:LJoseph|LJoseph]] 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting well-written response ==

Having recently found the wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence Religiosity and intelligence], I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article [[Religiosity and intelligence]] on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- [[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::see: [[Atheism and intelligence]]. I hope that helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

== Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x ==

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

===Pros===
*I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Nx/vandalbrake VandalBrake] (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
*[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.16 MediaWiki 1.16] is more than three years old and therefore technical support is no longer available from the Wikimedia Foundation. The software probably has security weaknesses that hackers could be attempting to exploit as we speak in an effort to use Conservapedia's servers as a vector for black hat activities. Websites with security vulnerabilities are a key part of the illicit global infrastructure of malware, spam and phishing. Bot herders crawl the web looking for websites with security vulnerabilities, and then use the vulnerabilities to hijack them. The hijacked website will distribute malware (viruses) to visitors, either via browser vulnerabilities or overtly by social engineering. The downloaded malware turns the client's computer into a "zombie" that is part of a global network of organized crime aimed at stealing bank account details, sending spam, and extorting money from websites with denial-of-service threats. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 11:02, 6 January 2014 (EST)

===Cons===

===Vote===
This is not open for voting yet 

== question ==

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at [[Special:PopularPages]], which gives a sorted list. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==Editor retention==
Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the [[Special:Statistics]] page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)
==Main Page proposal==
Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator [[Daniel Inouye]], do not receive serious consideration. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/119#Main_Page_Right Other proposals have been ignored.] I have just proposed on [[Talk:Main Page]] that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
: Please leave your comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Formal_Proposal_to_Establish_a_Main_Page_Committee here.] Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

== Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking ==
I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post.
One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand.
Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like.
So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. We already have pages on [[RINO]]s, [[PLINO]]s and [[XINO]]s as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of [[Conservative Hypocrisy]].
As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page according to the outline I described above. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
:::You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::The answer is still no. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::What about "[[pseudoconservative hypocrisy]]"? Could that work? Every movement has pseudobelievers who infiltrate to spread a pernicious doctrine; this is why so much of the text of Acts and the letters of the New Testament are devoted to warning of false teachers entering the church. The word "[[antichrist]]" in Greek is "pseudokhristos" or "false Messiah". It happens in political movements too. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:32, 6 January 2014 (EST)
::::That would work, provided it is demonstrated that 1) the individual involved claimed to be conservative; 2) it is proven that he lied about being conservative and/or willfully abandoned conservative principles. A lot of RINOs are like that. The term "pseudoconservative" would have to be clearly stated in the first paragraph as to what it means. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:16, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:::::The first step is to establish what [[precision|precisely]] it means to be a conservative. Then we can more productively attempt to assess whether a particular person's behavior has fallen short of that mark or not. Consider, for example, George W. Bush. People say that he wasn't very fiscally conservative, but how fiscally conservative would he have to be to not count as a hypocrite? What numbers would have to appear in a budget in order for us to conclude that the person responsible is a true conservative, and how much of a deviation from those numbers would it take to make a person qualify for the pseudoconservative category? Unless we have some way to settle such issues objectively, we are setting ourselves up for endless arguments that go nowhere, or else are settled by some arbitrary fiat. It's not like a private sector contract, in which the numbers are spelled out beforehand, and we can definitively say whether a party breached the contract.

:::::This matter is made even more touchy by the fact that leftists and other political opponents of conservatives rejoice to see infighting amongst conservatives about who are the true and who are the false conservatives. They like to see conservative resources expended uselessly on divisive conflicts that breed bitterness and eventual attrition within the ranks. So in trying to debate whether a particular conservative is a hypocrite, we will have to simultaneously deal with people's fears that we're playing right into the leftists' hands by even engaging in that discussion. Before we get started, I think we need to be aware of all the barriers to productive conversation and decide whether we can or should commit ourselves to overcoming them, or else it's better just to not even get underway on this effort.

:::::Incidentally, the particular manifestation of conservative infighting that anti-conservatives love above all others is when conservatives falsely accuse one another of not being true conservatives and purge the innocent from their ranks. This damages the movement by (1) directly diminishing its manpower through the loss of the purged members, (2) causing more infighting that results in more attrition (whether by (a) resignation of members who are disgusted by either (I) the way the fighting is going or (II) the fact that so much attention is devoted to fighting in general; or by (b) further purges, when one faction or another gets the upper hand over the other and expels its adversaries), and (4) detracting from the movement's reputation for fairness, reasonableness and effectiveness, which hinders recruitment.

:::::One is reminded of [[2 Samuel]] 11-12. [[David]] and [[Uriah]] were supposed to be on the same side, but David turned on him without good cause. In 2 Samuel 12:14, [[Nathan]] points out, "by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". The enemies of conservatism watch what we do for any sign of illogic or factual inaccuracy, yearning to chortle over any error we might make. Worrying about it excessively can in fact induce more errors, due to the potential for self-consciousness to distract from the task at hand. Therefore, we can and should, of course, let the dogs bark and pay no heed to their yelping, knowing that ultimately, "with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." ([[1 Peter]] 2:15) I just point it out because the possibility often comes up in these debates. Creating an article like [[pseudoconservative hypocrisy]] is like [http://imgur.com/wGUTG code refactoring]; one wants to think through the likely consequences before venturing into that bathtub. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 09:37, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Moving / renaming pages ==

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
:Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

==over 12 hours of not being able to edit==
I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:If there isn't a FAQ already with this question, it should be added. At night, the wiki is locked to editing. I would propose that instead, some other means of deterring vandalism be implemented. For example, edits could be throttled at night. People could be allowed to make, say, two edits every 30 minutes. This would limit the potential for vandalism; users in the Edit group would be able to keep up with reverting it without the need for a sysop to be around to block people. Another possibility is to give more users sysop rights and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Establishing_a_hierarchy_of_bureaucrats establish a hierarchy of bureaucrats] to keep them in check. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:28, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013 ==

The Sherman tank(s), also known as [[User: Conservative]] :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx hedgerows] fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist [[VivaYehshua]] (the biology major at a university) on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. See: [[VivaYehshua]].

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]
::VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[http://templestream.xanga.com/771564827/top-problems-with-evolutionary-teaching-today/] :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

== QuestyCaptcha ==
I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:QuestyCaptcha works best with lower-profile wikis that don't have a determined base of vandals who would put in the effort to crack all the questions. That said, QuestyCaptcha would provide opportunities for some interesting [[shibboleth]]s. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:19, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly ==

Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Mr DeMy*er, any time you want a book published ask me to write it for you, instead of some cretard loser. $2,000 plus tax and your "15 Questions" book will be done by the end of the month.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:56, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
: Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. [[User:RowanO|RowanO]] 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Rowan, I turned up for the debate and instantly got banned by another moderator. Ken tends to forget that little detail.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:58, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of [[User: Conservative]] on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Patmac, are you going to get Scotland Yard on this case or are you going to report [[User: Conservative]] to Interpol for high crimes and misdemeanors instead? You are acting like a yappy, little dog that is all bark and no bite. Patmac, liberalism is rapidly heading towards financial bankruptcy in the West and will collapse under its own weight. It happened in the Soviet Union and it will happen to Western nations which ignore the lessons of Greece and what is starting to be played out in California. Empty threats by members of teetering ideologies are not impressive in the least. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Unsurprisingly patmac has been blocked user:c so he will not be able to respond. It's a shame really, I would have loved to hear the British Home Secretary's reply to any communication from him. I reckon I would have heard her laughing here where I live in the UK 40 miles from London, in fact I suspect you would have heard the laughing all the way over in the US. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:40, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::Patmac, I looked up and suddenly saw your signature turn red. I didn't ask Karajou to declare you "Persona non Grata". He did this on his own accord. I do find it to be a case of poetic justice though considering your empty threat to get me/us banned from the UK. For all you know, I/we could be in the UK right now eating fish and chips and washing it down with Mackeson Stout! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Nice try, Ken. I see you forgot to mention that Viva (who isn't a christian, by the way) is still banned from Shock's pathetic chatroom. That makes your "debate challenge" a farce, rendered all the more farcical by your cowardly refusal to debate me yourself. Here's me, willing to take time off from writing my latest book to debate you, and you're too gutless. You must really enjoy the company of those bunnies.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::User:C, considering the current debacle surrounding Patmac, I would suggest avoiding mention of him for the time being (especially given your highly provocative relationship with him)[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:01, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
Fergus, you don't know what you are talking about and I/we also don't believe you are being sincere.

First, trinitarian Messianic Jews like VivaYehshua, recognize that Jesus was God and the Savior of mankind. Also, in most forms of Messianic Judaism salvation is by God's grace (I am assuming many of them also believe that true faith will have works).

Second, in the past you claimed that VivaYehshua did not like the 15 questions for evolutionists. I/we talked to VivaYehshua and he does like the 15 questions for evolutionists. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c HERE] is a video of Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the Question Evolution Campaign which includes the 15 questions for evolutionists. So why should I believe your claim that Viva has been banned from the Shockofgod's chatroom? I/we don't believe this. VivaYehshua is now attending a university for biology and he is working too. I/we think he is merely busier and in the chatroom less. Shockofgod is still reachable through (twitter, YouTube channel, blog) and so there is no reason why you can't get in contact with VivaYehshua and/or Shockofgod.

Fergus, just admit it. You agreed to debate VivaYehshua and then you cowardly backed down! I/we wouldn't even consider debating a cowardly and obscure evolutionist such as yourself until you keep your promise to debate VivaYehshua. First socks Fergus and then shoes! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::By the way Patmac, I/we know why you became so enraged and had your childish, little "I'll get you banned from the UK" temper tantrum. That cat that gets hit by the shoe yelps the loudest! You know that what I/we said about [[evolution|Darwinism]] and [[liberal Christianity]] are true. See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity and irrationalism]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:31, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

:Mackeson Stout!!? C'mon Cons; try and refer to what you know, not what you've had to search for. (And while I am at it - what has [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] got to do with the subject being discussed? Oh! I see. It's a bit of triumphalism creeping in - taunting the person who can't answer back - is that a Conservative trait or a conservative trait. To my knowledge it is not a Christian trait. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:33, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative]] I thought you did not have any time in the next couple of years to engage in - or even read for that matter - conversations such as this. This is very much like the type of discussion you would find on a talk page, is it not? Are you going back on your promise, are you not as busy as you thought you would be or have your commitments been lessened? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:55, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Wilcox, tied up the Fergus Mason loose end today. May be checking recent changes less frequently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
:::AlanE, the underlying issue is I offered valid criticism of so called [[liberal Christianity]] via facts/studies and the best Patmac could do is say "I am offended", "you are hateful", etc. etc. I am offended, etc. etc. is not a rational defense that regates facts/reality. It is a petulant display of immaturity. It is lame - just like his I will get you barred out of the UK lameness. I am offended is #5 of [[liberal style]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

== Creationists GROWING. Atheists flagging ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/atheist-wiki-lacks-internet-machismo.html Creationist group's influence GROWING. Atheist wiki flagging]

== Gun purchasing advice ==

Having recently acquired a handgun permit in New York state (not an easy thing to do, I assure you; it seems I've been at it for years!) I can now legally purchase a handgun to go along with my collection of rifles. Does anyone have any advice on what sort of gun I should buy? Any informed opinion, especially if Biblically inspired, would be most appreciated. Thanks. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 13:50, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
:Congratulations! Really, it depends on your situation and what you're trying to accomplish. Assuming you're willing to make a moderately large investment in your collection, to cover all your bases, I would recommend five guns: a semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifle (for defending against large mobs); a bolt-action hunting/sniper rifle (for killing large game or defending against an entrenched marauder); a shotgun (for fowl hunting); a .22 caliber rifle (to hone shooting skills and bag small game); and a pistol (for close-in self-defense). If you can only afford a few of these, you may have to do some soul-searching about which of these needs is most important and relevant to your circumstances. Personal proclivities will also be a factor, of course; some people are partial to particular guns. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:17, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== AbuseFilter ==

I strongly recommend installing [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter AbuseFilter] as a way to throttle nighttime editing rather than disabling it entirely. It is a rather powerful tool for stopping other kinds of vandalism too; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter for some ideas. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:52, 6 January 2014 (EST)

:I don't think they know how. I constantly get a server error that says to contact the webmaster, even when the wiki is open to edit. [[User:JohnBD|JohnBD]] 19:12, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking " There are no black holes" Another example of conservapedia proven right? ==

Did any one read the recent article on Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583. After all these, there may not be any blackholes.--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 18:40, 25 January 2014 (EST)

Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

2013-11-06T03:26:18Z

OconnorM:

'''Does [[God]] Have a Sense of Humor?'''

Rarely is the sense of humor of God discussed or analyzed, but [[Proverbs 1-8 (Translated)#8:31|Proverbs 8:31]] states that [[God]] finds amusement with the human race. '''''There are many compelling reasons to conclude that God does have a sense of humor''''', and most of the jokes are at the expense of liberals/anti-Christians:

*'''names''': remarkable skills seem to be given to people who have unusual names to match the skill, as in "Usain Bolt" (the fastest sprinter in world history); "Learned Hand" (one of the finest judges in history); "Michael Arms" (an [[2012 Summer Olympics|Olympic]] rower from [[New Zealand]]);<ref>http://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/2012/athletes/047f7705-2b90-4267-94da-e2c02de08d98</ref> "Billy Sunday" (one of the most famous Christian preachers in American history); "Richie Incognito" (an [[NFL]] all-Pro offensive lineman);<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5002565</ref> and "[[George McGovern]]" (a former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate). Also, there are many whites named "Black" and African Americans named "White". [[Russell Brain]] was a famous neurologist whose text book, Brain's diseases of the nervous system is still in wide use.
*'''political scandals''': liberals once mocked General David Petraeus by calling him "General Betray Us"; liberal President Obama subsequently appointed him as head of the CIA, whereupon he caused a massive scandal that betrayed liberals by embarrassing them.
*'''football''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
*'''[[John 1-7 (Translated)#2:1|the wedding at Cana]]''': it was a huge ''faux paux'' for the host to run out of wine, leaving the guests stranded with nothing to drink (the water was probably not drinkable), but the last laugh was by the servants and [[Jesus]] when they gave a welcomed surprise to the host without explaining the source.
*'''implausible absurdities''': the election outcome for the 2000 presidential election was implausibly close in [[Florida]], and apparently [[Al Gore]] lost because some [[Democrat]] voters misread the "butterfly ballot."
*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], after attacking Jesus and God in the last books he would ever write, went insane.
*'''sociology''': the massive carvings of caricatures of human beings found, without a plausible explanation, on [[Easter Island]].
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]] and [[Adolf Hitler]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways; also, God sometimes uses [[sarcasm]], as in [[Amos_(Translated)#Chapter_4|Amos 4:4]].
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
*'''zoology''': there are various animals, such as the duck-billed platypus, the cheeky monkey or the long-necked giraffe, that seem designed in order to amuse.
*'''[[atheism]]''': atheistic nations like [[North Korea]] are known for their lack of a sense of humor.
*'''[[ontological argument|ontological]]''': God is defined as the greatest being conceivable, and it's better to have a sense of humor than not; therefore God has a sense of humor.
*'''intrinsic humor''': some humor is funny to virtually everyone who has a sense of humor - which would be impossible in the absence of intrinsic humor. Yet intrinsic humor would be impossible unless God appreciated it also.
*'''contradictions and disbelief''': contradictions and surprise are the essence of humor, and God's allowance of their basis to continue to exist suggests that God may find amusement in it.
*'''media''': Within weeks after the [[lamestream media]] made the unlikely claim that [[Fidel Castro]] -- who has not been seen in public since the frail dictator went to a hospital for a very grave condition in July 2006 -- had met the [[Pope]], a five-day suspension was imposed on [[Florida Marlins]] manager Ozzie Guillen for expressing admiration that Fidel Castro has such longevity.
*'''inexplicable humor''': [[liberals]] in [[Colorado]] wanted to expel the successful, but outspokenly [[Christian]], [[Tim Tebow]], but he ended up in a much bigger media market as a result, and received even more publicity.
*'''dreams''': some dreams might be God playing a trick for amusement purposes on you.
*'''the Bible''': see [[humor in the Bible]]
*'''idolatry''': some who idolize [[Obama]] think that he is an atheist, when in fact he is likely a [[Muslim]]
*'''Miracle Catch of Fish''' (John 21:1-25) - God chose to reveal himself in a humorous by telling the fishermen, who had unsuccessfully tried all night to catch a fish, to cast their nets on the other side of the boat, which nearly broke the net with such a large catch of fish.
*'''[[Adultery]]''': The seventh commandment Thou shalt not commit adultery shows God has a sense of humor because when a womanizer from Arkansas had an affair with Miss [[Monica Lewinsky]] he tarnished his presidential reputation and created a field day for conservatives.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Mystery]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Humor]]

Down syndrome

2013-08-28T15:37:35Z

OconnorM:

'''Down syndrome''' (also written as '''Down's syndrome''', technical name '''Trisomy 21'''<ref>http://www.ds-health.com/trisomy.htm</ref>) is a genetic disorder caused by an extra copy of [[chromosome]] 21. IT is the most common syndrome caused by chromosomal abnormalities in human beings. The greatest risk factor for having a child with Down syndrome is increased maternal (and, to a lesser extent, paternal) age.

The name comes from [[British]] [[physician]] [[John Langdom Down]], who described the syndrome in his [[1862]] paper, "Observations on an Ethnic Classification of Idiots". Down conjectured that the syndrome was a "degeneracy" of [[caucasians]] to [[mongols]] (the [[mongolian]] race was one of the five racial classifications commonly used at the time), and the term '''mongolism''' was inpired by his paper. Currently, the terms "mongolism" and "mongoloid" are considered offensive. 

The most important medical aspect of Down syndrome is [[mental retardation]]. Individuals with Down syndrome have mild to severe mental retardation. It is impossible to reliably predict what the eventual level of function of a child with Down syndrome will be.

Other characteristics of Down syndrome (not all of which affect every individual who has Down's) are :
* Single [[transverse palmar crease]]
* Epicanthic folds and oblique eye opening
* Smaller limbs
* Weak muscle tone
* Enlarged, protruding [[tongue]]
* [[Congenital heart defect]]- Atrioventricular septal defects
* [[Gastroesophageal reflux disease]]
* [[Otitis]] and hearing deficits
* [[Sleep apnea]]
* [[Thyroid]] hormone problems
* Increased risk of [[Leukemia]], but reduced risk of other forms of [[cancer]]
* Early onset [[Alzheimer's disease]]

People with Down Syndrome have significantly lesser rates of cancer than other people <ref>[http://www.downsyn.com/cancer.php]</ref>; in fact, recent studies about the correlation of Down Syndrome and cancer may even provide a cure for cancer <ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090520/full/news.2009.493.html</ref>.

The greatest risk factor in is increased maternal age, the majority of children with Down syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 35, because the vast majority of children as a whole are born to younger mothers.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]

Down syndrome

2013-08-28T15:35:59Z

OconnorM:

'''Down syndrome''' (also written as '''Down's syndrome''', technical name '''Trisomy 21'''<ref>http://www.ds-health.com/trisomy.htm</ref>) is a genetic disorder caused by an extra copy of [[chromosome]] 21. IT is the most common syndrome caused by chromosomal abnormalities in human beings. The greatest risk factor for having a child with Down syndrome is increased maternal (and, to a lesser extent, paternal) age.

The name comes from [[British]] [[physician]] [[John Langdom Down]], who described the syndrome in his [[1862]] paper, "Observations on an Ethnic Classification of Idiots". Down conjectured that the syndrome was a "degeneracy" of [[caucasians]] to [[mongols]] (the [[mongolian]] race was one of the five racial classifications commonly used at the time), and the term '''mongolism''' was inpired by his paper. Currently, the terms "mongolism" and "mongoloid" are considered offensive. 

The most important medical aspect of Down syndrome is [[mental retardation]]. Individuals with Down syndrome have mild to severe mental retardation. It is impossible to reliably predict what the eventual level of function of a child with Down syndrome will be.

Other characteristics of Down syndrome (not all of which affect every individual who has Down's) are :
* Single [[transverse palmar crease]]
* Epicanthic folds and oblique eye opening
* Smaller limbs
* Weak muscle tone
* Enlarged, protruding [[tongue]]
* [[Congenital heart defect]]
* [[Gastroesophageal reflux disease]]
* [[Otitis]] and hearing deficits
* [[Sleep apnea]]
* [[Thyroid]] hormone problems
* Increased risk of [[Leukemia]], but reduced risk of other forms of [[cancer]]
* Early onset [[Alzheimer's disease]]

People with Down Syndrome have significantly lesser rates of cancer than other people <ref>[http://www.downsyn.com/cancer.php]</ref>; in fact, recent studies about the correlation of Down Syndrome and cancer may even provide a cure for cancer <ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090520/full/news.2009.493.html</ref>.

The greatest risk factor in is increased maternal age, the majority of children with Down syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 35, because the vast majority of children as a whole are born to younger mothers.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Syndromes]]

User talk:OconnorM

2013-07-22T03:29:01Z

OconnorM: /* Good person test */

== should I have written it here? ==
hello Every one....
not sure about wiki etiquette.
Maria from London. originally from Dublin. Loves writing stories, articles, cooking and knitting

== Good person test ==

Dear Maria,

I know you are upset about not passing the good person test. The person at this website has a good person test too and it about the same test as the one you took: http://www.endoftheworld2012.net/goodpersontest.htm You can talk to him about your results and what to do about it here: http://www.endoftheworld2012.net/apps/contactme/sites/show

You can replace your sadness with joy Maria. I am positive about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

Thank you--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 23:29, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

2013-07-22T02:36:41Z

OconnorM:

Reddit is a multimedia aggregate site, where users promote or inhibit the flow of information through "upvoting" submissions they like and "downvoting" submissions they disagree with. Reddit is becoming one of the defining cultural representations of the decade, representing the democratization of culture and promoting the free flow of knowledge across the net. Reddit recently removed the [[atheism]] subreddit for not being upto the standard
==Gaming the system==
Reddit is suceptible to being gamed, and during 2009, it was believed that the infamous [[Digg Patriots]] were actively engaging in censorship on the website by collectively banning liberal users and hiding liberal posts while promoting conservative posters. These actions were revealed in 2010, after a year long investigation leading to most of these users being banned from the service.
The mainstream Reddit community is overwhelmingly liberal, and conservative values are "downvoted", especially in the "Politics" subsection of the site.
[[Category:Websites]]

Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?

2013-07-22T02:33:50Z

OconnorM:

Not a fair question. That's like asking "Was Mozart not intelligent enough to produce Bach's Tocatta and Fugue on his own?" Even if a god exists, his existence doesn't make it necessary for him to create every possible thing in every possible location. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:43, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]

Agreed with SEdwin. The question implies that intelligence and intelligent creation requires creation life on Mars, which makes absolutely zero sense. There's no reason life needs to be created on Mars as well as on Earth. God could have reasons for creating life on one planet in the solar system and not on others, e.g. wanting it all in one place for easy travel and communication. But there's no reason to assume not creating it on other planets in the solar system means a lack of intelligence. Rather, the question shows fallacious, illogical thinking on the part of the questioner. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 17:07, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

He knows all. He knows that life on Mars and life on Earth would both wipe each other out, and nothing would live to be in His image.
[[User:Deltaepsilon|Deltaepsilon]] 21:54, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Hi--new conservative user here and very proud of it! :D Anyway, if I can inject my two cents into this issue, I would like to respectfully disagree with Deltaepsilon. Why would life on other planets, if created in God's image, by default kill each other? I can understand if our biology is so foreign and our languages are so incompatible with one another, a la the modern nihilistic scientists' view on things--but I have a more idealistic view of the universe, given the fact that I believe in God and that I believe He created life on other worlds as well as this one. If it was His intent that we eventually contact each other, He would facilitate such possibility, no? [[User:YoungAmericanPatriot|YoungAmericanPatriot]] 19:50, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Does not make any sense. As others mentioned, the question assumes that intelligence requires creation of life on Mars. Debate could be why did god not create life on Mars.--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 22:33, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?

2013-07-22T02:32:26Z

OconnorM:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2013-06-10T13:29:59Z

OconnorM: /* Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not! */

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

===Cavemen and wolves===
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

===Basic logic?===
''"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic."'' Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
::And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (''Canis latrans''), the Ethiopian wolf (''Canis simensis''), and the golden jackal (''Canis aureus''), as well as several other members of ''Canis''. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::::And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
:::::::Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - ''Canis lupus''. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Do you have any evidence that it didn't '''and''' couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

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

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

== HIV and Evolution ==

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

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

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Proto-arthropods do exist. They're called "lobopods". They are reasonably well-documented in the fossil record and can still be found today if you know how to look (e.g. digging through sponges with dissecting probes). --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:47, 21 January 2012 (EST)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Kidney donor ==

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

::The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.

::Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)

::::We do actually need both kidneys. With only one kidney, such as after donating one, you become significantly more likely to develop renal diseases such as FSGS. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:39, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
'''

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''

== Clearly Invalid Counterexamples ==

''If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.''
:No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
::The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
:::Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.

''There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.''
:In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
::Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
:::Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are '''very''' few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years.

''Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.''
:The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
::Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
:::The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)

--[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)

"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."
They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== wisdom teeth ==

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

:For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)

::Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After [[the fall]], mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Autumn foliage ==
This is caused by the chlorophyll (which makes the leaves green) fading away, and other pigments becoming more prominent and displaying the reds, oranges, and yellows. The purpose is not beauty; it is simply a natural consequence of the chlorophyll fading away as the air gets cooler. More detail can be found [http://www.ozarkmtns.com/foliage/funfacts.asp here.] Maybe this example should be removed. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 09:14, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
== Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not! ==

I had added the following entry as a counter example to Evolution. It was removed at some stage. I wonder what was the reason. I thought it was a good point.

# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.

--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 14:54, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

Can I please add it again as there is no objection?

--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 09:29, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-09-27T18:55:08Z

OconnorM: /* Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not! */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-09-27T18:54:32Z

OconnorM: /* Autumn foliage */

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

===Cavemen and wolves===
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

===Basic logic?===
''"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic."'' Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
::And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (''Canis latrans''), the Ethiopian wolf (''Canis simensis''), and the golden jackal (''Canis aureus''), as well as several other members of ''Canis''. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::::And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
:::::::Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - ''Canis lupus''. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Do you have any evidence that it didn't '''and''' couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

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

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

== HIV and Evolution ==

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

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

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Proto-arthropods do exist. They're called "lobopods". They are reasonably well-documented in the fossil record and can still be found today if you know how to look (e.g. digging through sponges with dissecting probes). --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:47, 21 January 2012 (EST)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Kidney donor ==

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

::The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.

::Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)

::::We do actually need both kidneys. With only one kidney, such as after donating one, you become significantly more likely to develop renal diseases such as FSGS. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:39, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
'''

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''

== Clearly Invalid Counterexamples ==

''If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.''
:No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
::The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
:::Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.

''There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.''
:In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
::Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
:::Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are '''very''' few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years.

''Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.''
:The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
::Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
:::The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)

--[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)

"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."
They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== wisdom teeth ==

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

:For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)

::Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After [[the fall]], mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Autumn foliage ==
This is caused by the chlorophyll (which makes the leaves green) fading away, and other pigments becoming more prominent and displaying the reds, oranges, and yellows. The purpose is not beauty; it is simply a natural consequence of the chlorophyll fading away as the air gets cooler. More detail can be found [http://www.ozarkmtns.com/foliage/funfacts.asp here.] Maybe this example should be removed. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 09:14, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
== Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not! ==

I had added the following entry as a counter example to Evolution. It was removed at some stage. I wonder what was the reason.

# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.

--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 14:54, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-06T16:46:18Z

OconnorM: /* No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal */

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy liberals on welfare! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny

== Math'd -- Gay marriage ==

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-07-06T16:41:15Z

OconnorM: /* Uncategorized */

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

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

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574.400-reptile-grew-featherlike-structures-before-dinosaurs.html</ref>

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

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

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-07-06T16:39:04Z

OconnorM: /* Uncategorized */

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

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

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

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

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-07-06T16:38:33Z

OconnorM: /* Uncategorized */

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

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

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

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

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-07-06T16:38:07Z

OconnorM: /* Uncategorized */

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

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

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the reptiles.

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

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

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:Marriage in the Unification Church

2012-04-19T00:11:46Z

OconnorM:

It's easy to see how the UC view of marriage contrasts with the "[[gay marriage]]" idea of homosexuality proponents. Besides the fact that UC marriage is clearly limited to [[heterosexual marriage|one man and one woman]], its purpose is for the larger whole. While [[gay rights]] activists pursue the "same privileges" for homosexual couples as for real married couples, they completely ignore their responsibility to society.

In fact, the entire [[gay marriage]] campaign is a sham. Homosexual couples do not practice monogamy or chastity. They just live together like any other unmarried couple. Domestic violence and cheating are even worse in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual world. Around 5 to 10 times worse, if I recall the statistics correctly.

When the UC calls them out on this, they respond with outrage - rather than doing or saying anything to disprove the charges. Their militancy will only increase if [[hate speech]] laws are passed in the US.

Suppose you insult a man's wife, and he hits you (knocking you down). It would be hard for you to press charges against him for assualt (see [[fighting words]]. Imagine that you saw a same-sex embrace or kiss in public and made a disparaging comment. If an argument ensued, and you were assaulted, your assailant would have the defense of calling your comment a "[[hate crime]]". Not to say that every gay-straight assault would be legal. But it would certainly have a chilling effect on comments.

It might even become illegal to make a public denunciation of homosexuality in general, even from a church pulpit. That would be the beginning of the end for American society. It would only spiral down into hell, like Sodom and Gomorrah.{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

:Ed, regarding your working knowledge of the law, it is really quite slim. (1) Insulting someone's wife is not a defense to assault. The fighting words doctrine - as constituting an independent offense, unprotected by free speech - has long since died out. While the laws remain on the books, they're unprosecuted and haven't been validated by the Supreme Court since the 1940s. Similarly, fighting words haven't been used as a defense to an assault prosecution in fifty plus years. If someone called your wife ugly, and you hit him, you WOULD face an assault prosecution, and the fighting words doctrine would NOT save you.
:Further to this point, the first amendment continues to protect your right to make "disparaging comments" about same-sex couples, even in public. Speech is not - nor has it ever been, in modern times - a hate crime. Read ''R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul'' if you don't believe me. Hate crime legislation - which actually doesn't yet cover crimes against gay men & women - only applies to ''actual crimes,'' and a speech act isn't a crime except under very limited circumstances (fire in a crowded theater, burning your draft card, "let's kill the president," etc.).
:It strikes me that you're speaking from the general conservative fearmongering about how gay rights threatens free speech. You should know that that fear has no basis in fact, nor will it ever. The idea that "hate speech" should be a crime has been firmly repudiated in the United States, as barred by the First Amendment. Please read up on the law and don't trust Ann Coulter & Human Events to get it right ;-)-[[User:LawrenceA|LawrenceA]] 10:39, 14 November 2008 (EST)
::''"Suppose you insult a man's wife, and he hits you (knocking you down). It would be hard for you to press charges against him for assualt"'' I would be mortified if ever a western country had such an absurd law. That someone would even suggest that insulting someone's spouse could be a defence or a mitigating factor to assault shows is frankly quite scary. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:00, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some doubts ==

I have a few doubts. What is the special talent of discernment of spirits? Is Rev Moon the only person in possession of this skill?

Also is Rev Moon a prophet? I thought our Lord Jesus Christ was the last prophet.

thanks for clarifying. --[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 20:11, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Thomas Kinkade

2012-04-07T21:17:05Z

OconnorM:

[[Image:Kinkade.jpg|left]]
'''Thomas Kinkade''' (b. 1958 - 2012) was an [[American]] artist who had enjoyed fabulous commercial success. His most famous [[painting|paintings]] depict imaginary [[English]] countryside scenes, with thatched cottages and a warm glow of light coming from the windows.

Kinkade called himself "Painter of Light," a phrase which he registered as a trademark. The phrase has a double meaning. It refers to his characteristic use of [[chiaroscuro]] to convey the impression that the streetlamps and windows in his paintings are actually glowing. In fact, the lighting in many of his galleries is designed to give the impression that sunsets are glowing and windows brightly lit when the lights are turned up, and that that the painting depicts a scene at night when the lights are turned down. This optical illusion is quite striking. But it also refers to his identity as a [[Christian]]. According to his website, "Kinkade uses his gift as a vehicle to communicate and spread inherent life-affirming values."

Most of the products sold by Kinkade's galleries are hybrids, consisting of mass-produced prints which are "highlighted;" that is, touched up with actual paint in key areas, by teams of artists working under Kinkade's direction. In "master edition" prints, the most costly, some of the highlighting is said to be done personally by Kinkade himself. Kinkade has won numerous awards including many artist of the year awards of National Association of Limited Edition Dealers (NALED).
Thomas Kinkade was a self-described "devout Christian". He said that his art is not just art -- ''it's a powerful force''.

== Petite Gallery ==
<center>
<gallery>
Image:Kinkade The Good Life.gif|The Good Life
Image:Kinkade First Snow.jpg|First Snow
Image:Kinkade Spirit of New York.jpg|Spirit of New York
Image:Kinkade Seaside Hideway.jpg|Seaside Hideway
</gallery>

Kinkade's sentimental paintings — with their scenes of cottages, country gardens and churches in dewy morning light — were beloved by many in middle-class America but generally dismissed by the art establishment. The paintings typically depict tranquil scenes with lush landscaping and streams running nearby. Many contain images from Bible passages. [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/artist-thomas-kinkade-died-sudden-of-natural-causes-family-says.html]

</center>

== See also ==

*[[Painting Schools]]
*[[Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[Yuri Sidorenko]]
*[[Painting Galleries]]

== External links ==
[[Image:Kinkade Americas pride.jpg|thumb|America's pride]]
*[http://www.kinkadecentral.com/ Thomas Kinkade Gallery]
*[http://www.artusa.com/kinkade_a.htm THE ART OF THOMAS KINKADE]
*[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/artist-thomas-kinkade-died-sudden-of-natural-causes-family-says.html Artist Thomas Kinkade died suddenly of natural causes, family says.]

[[Category:American Painters|Kinkade, Thomas]]

Talk:Resurrection Sunday

2012-04-06T22:11:21Z

OconnorM: /* Proposed move to Easter */

How is this the "proper" term when you acknowledge on CP Terms article that you just made it up? I now declare that "Christmas" is now properly known as "Fuglehorn Day", a term I just created.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't know why it's listed on [[Conservapedia terms]]. The footnote for this article makes it clear that the term was not coined on Conservapedia. I guess it's just that it's not in widespread use, so Conservapedia is trying to increase how much it's used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with calling it Easter? [[User:DM|DM]] 11:32, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

This page is outrageous. Even if the name easter was taken from a pagan holiday doesn't mean that the name is pagan. It was adapted by christians and is accepted by almost every christian group. Are you going to call those christians pagans. That's a little much conservapedia --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Church usage of "Resurrection Sunday" instead of "Easter" ==
Are there any examples of actual churches using Resurrection Sunday instead of Easter? I Googled the term and didn't find much, certainly not enough to convince me that the term Easter is becoming denigrated. The christiananswers.net source is weak in that it doesn't give any actual examples of churches changing terms. I have found plenty of churches that still use the term Easter, though. Saddleback Church[http://www.saddleback.com/index.html#], the United Methodist Church[http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2514885/k.63E6/Lent_and_Easter_Resources.htm], at least one Catholic congregation[http://parishcalendar.com:8080/93/19811] (example taken from a pretty conservative part of the US), Thomas Road Baptist Church[http://home.trbc.org/index.cfm?PID=18511] (of Jerry Falwell fame) all use the term Easter, not Resurrection Sunday. (Please note that the links will likely not be relevant after this coming Easter.) I propose that we change the wording so that it doesn't suggest that eschewing the term Easter has become mainstream or even close to it. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Our Church [[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]] uses "Feast of the Resurrection" for Easter but its best not to get too hung up about names. Otherwise we would be using, as in Judaism and in Israel, First Day of the Week instead of Sunday (the day of the Sun) and Fifth Day of the Week instead of Thursday (the day of Thor) and the First Month of the Secular Year instead of January (the double faced god Janus) and the Eighth Month instead of the Month of Augustus Caesar, etc.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:58, 28 November 2009 (EST)

== Proposed move to [[Easter]] ==

Whatever the origin of the name happen to be, [[Easter]] is the most well-known name for the celebration that is the subject of the article. Therefore, I request that this article be moved to [[Easter]]. Of course, Resurrection Sunday could still be included as an alternative name with sources. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:04, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:I think that Resurrection Sunday is the most appropriate name as it is the holiday celebrating the resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Easter is well known, but does not imply the importance and it is pagan origin. If Resurrection Sunday is popularised by encyclopedias like this, it will eventually become more popular. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia like ours. Whoever chose to use Resurrection Sunday as the main name has amazing foresight --[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 18:10, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Resurrection Sunday

2012-04-06T22:10:40Z

OconnorM: /* Proposed move to Easter */

How is this the "proper" term when you acknowledge on CP Terms article that you just made it up? I now declare that "Christmas" is now properly known as "Fuglehorn Day", a term I just created.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't know why it's listed on [[Conservapedia terms]]. The footnote for this article makes it clear that the term was not coined on Conservapedia. I guess it's just that it's not in widespread use, so Conservapedia is trying to increase how much it's used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with calling it Easter? [[User:DM|DM]] 11:32, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

This page is outrageous. Even if the name easter was taken from a pagan holiday doesn't mean that the name is pagan. It was adapted by christians and is accepted by almost every christian group. Are you going to call those christians pagans. That's a little much conservapedia --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Church usage of "Resurrection Sunday" instead of "Easter" ==
Are there any examples of actual churches using Resurrection Sunday instead of Easter? I Googled the term and didn't find much, certainly not enough to convince me that the term Easter is becoming denigrated. The christiananswers.net source is weak in that it doesn't give any actual examples of churches changing terms. I have found plenty of churches that still use the term Easter, though. Saddleback Church[http://www.saddleback.com/index.html#], the United Methodist Church[http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2514885/k.63E6/Lent_and_Easter_Resources.htm], at least one Catholic congregation[http://parishcalendar.com:8080/93/19811] (example taken from a pretty conservative part of the US), Thomas Road Baptist Church[http://home.trbc.org/index.cfm?PID=18511] (of Jerry Falwell fame) all use the term Easter, not Resurrection Sunday. (Please note that the links will likely not be relevant after this coming Easter.) I propose that we change the wording so that it doesn't suggest that eschewing the term Easter has become mainstream or even close to it. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Our Church [[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]] uses "Feast of the Resurrection" for Easter but its best not to get too hung up about names. Otherwise we would be using, as in Judaism and in Israel, First Day of the Week instead of Sunday (the day of the Sun) and Fifth Day of the Week instead of Thursday (the day of Thor) and the First Month of the Secular Year instead of January (the double faced god Janus) and the Eighth Month instead of the Month of Augustus Caesar, etc.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 17:58, 28 November 2009 (EST)

== Proposed move to [[Easter]] ==

Whatever the origin of the name happen to be, [[Easter]] is the most well-known name for the celebration that is the subject of the article. Therefore, I request that this article be moved to [[Easter]]. Of course, Resurrection Sunday could still be included as an alternative name with sources. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:04, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:I think that Resurrection Sunday is the most appropriate name as it is the holiday celebrating the resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Easter is well known, but does not imply the importance and it is pagan origin. If Resurrection Sunday is popularised by encyclopedias like this, it will eventually become more popular. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia like ours. --[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 18:10, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Resurrection Sunday

2012-04-06T21:33:59Z

OconnorM:

[[File:Carracci The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ.jpg|thumb|[[Annibale Carracci]], The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ, circa 1597-98.]]
'''Resurrection Sunday''' (also known as '''Easter''') is the [[Christian]] holiday marking the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] three days after His crucifixion on [[Good Friday]], and is the most important festival of the [[liturgical year]]. Pascha is the celebration of Easter in the Eastern Orthodox church.

== Date of Resurrection Sunday ==

In 325, the Council of [[Nicaea]] declared that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the [[full moon]] of the vernal equinox.

Resurrection Sunday doesn't fall on a fixed date in the calendar. Instead, it is based on a lunar calendar like that used by the Jews. At the [[Nicaean Council]] in 325 AD it was decided that Resurrection Sunday would be celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox. The date of the [[full moon]] was to be determined by using the [[Metonic Cycle]]. Eastern Orthodox Churches still use the Julian calendar when determining the date of Resurrection Sunday and thus have a different date for the celebration.

== Lent ==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|The Miraculous Draught of Fishes by Konrad Witz.]]
Resurrection Sunday marks the end of the 46 days of [[Lent]], a period of fasting and penitence in preparation for Resurrection Sunday, which begins on [[Ash Wednesday]] and ends on Resurrection Sunday. However, Lent really only comprises 40 days since the 6 Sundays during this period are excluded from the Lenten fast, and are days that are set apart to commemorate Resurrection Sunday and Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, defeated the grave and guaranteed eternal life to those who believe.

The days before Resurrection Sunday also are special in the Christian tradition: the Sunday before is [[Palm Sunday]], and the last three days before Resurrection Sunday are [[Holy Thursday]], [[Good Friday]] and [[Silent Saturday]]. These days commemorate Jesus' entry into [[Jerusalem]], the [[Last Supper]] and the [[Crucifixion]].

== Origin of the name "Easter" ==

The term "Easter" is likely derived from ''Eastre'' or ''Isthar'', who was the pagan goddess of fertility for whom the Festival of Ishtar was celebrated each spring. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5695/#easter Others suggest] that the word comes from the anglo-saxon word for "passover". In biblical times the Jewish [[Passover]], which commemorates the sparing of the [[Hebrew]] firstborns, was celebrated at roughly the same time as the [[vernal equinox]] or this “Eastre” festival. The theory of pagan origin surmises that while the Gospel was being spread to the pagans, the celebration of Eastre and the celebration of the resurrection became combined and the Christians adopted the name that the pagans had used for their festival.

==The name "Resurrection Sunday"==

This name is used in [[Mexico]]: "Domingo de Resurrección," which translates as Resurrection Sunday. In the [[United States]], most Christian churches continue to prefer the word ''Easter,'' although ''Resurrection Sunday'' has gained favor in some Protestant churches in recent years, most often as a response to the possibly pagan origins of the name "Easter."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html</ref>

== Feast of Mercy ==

Some Christians celebrate the Feast of Mercy on the first Sunday after Easter. ''The mercy of Christ to and for us—and our demonstration of that mercy to those within and outside the Body of Christ is the key to the future of the Church, to mission and stewardship, to living our Christian lives together in love and forgiveness, to moving boldly and confidently into the future with courage in the Gospel.'' Matthew Harrison. <ref> [http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?part_no=124313 Christ Have Mercy: How to Put Your Faith in Action.]</ref>

== Pentecost ==

[[Pentecost]] is seven weeks after Resurrection Sunday. Those seven weeks are celebrated as the Season of Easter in the [[Catholic Church]].

== External links ==
[http://www.catholicexpert.com/easterprayer.htm Easter Prayers]
== See also ==

*[[Ascension of Christ]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Observances]][[category:Holidays]]

Resurrection Sunday

2012-04-06T21:30:44Z

OconnorM: /* See also */

[[File:Carracci The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ.jpg|thumb|[[Annibale Carracci]], The Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ, circa 1597-98.]]
'''Resurrection Sunday''' (also known as '''Easter''') is the [[Christian]] holiday marking the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] three days after His crucifixion on [[Good Friday]], and is the most important festival of the [[liturgical year]].

== Date of Resurrection Sunday ==

In 325, the Council of [[Nicaea]] declared that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the [[full moon]] of the vernal equinox.

Resurrection Sunday doesn't fall on a fixed date in the calendar. Instead, it is based on a lunar calendar like that used by the Jews. At the [[Nicaean Council]] in 325 AD it was decided that Resurrection Sunday would be celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox. The date of the [[full moon]] was to be determined by using the [[Metonic Cycle]]. Eastern Orthodox Churches still use the Julian calendar when determining the date of Resurrection Sunday and thus have a different date for the celebration.

== Lent ==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|The Miraculous Draught of Fishes by Konrad Witz.]]
Resurrection Sunday marks the end of the 46 days of [[Lent]], a period of fasting and penitence in preparation for Resurrection Sunday, which begins on [[Ash Wednesday]] and ends on Resurrection Sunday. However, Lent really only comprises 40 days since the 6 Sundays during this period are excluded from the Lenten fast, and are days that are set apart to commemorate Resurrection Sunday and Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, defeated the grave and guaranteed eternal life to those who believe.

The days before Resurrection Sunday also are special in the Christian tradition: the Sunday before is [[Palm Sunday]], and the last three days before Resurrection Sunday are [[Holy Thursday]], [[Good Friday]] and [[Silent Saturday]]. These days commemorate Jesus' entry into [[Jerusalem]], the [[Last Supper]] and the [[Crucifixion]].

== Origin of the name "Easter" ==

The term "Easter" is likely derived from ''Eastre'' or ''Isthar'', who was the pagan goddess of fertility for whom the Festival of Ishtar was celebrated each spring. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5695/#easter Others suggest] that the word comes from the anglo-saxon word for "passover". In biblical times the Jewish [[Passover]], which commemorates the sparing of the [[Hebrew]] firstborns, was celebrated at roughly the same time as the [[vernal equinox]] or this “Eastre” festival. The theory of pagan origin surmises that while the Gospel was being spread to the pagans, the celebration of Eastre and the celebration of the resurrection became combined and the Christians adopted the name that the pagans had used for their festival.

==The name "Resurrection Sunday"==

This name is used in [[Mexico]]: "Domingo de Resurrección," which translates as Resurrection Sunday. In the [[United States]], most Christian churches continue to prefer the word ''Easter,'' although ''Resurrection Sunday'' has gained favor in some Protestant churches in recent years, most often as a response to the possibly pagan origins of the name "Easter."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html</ref>

== Feast of Mercy ==

Some Christians celebrate the Feast of Mercy on the first Sunday after Easter. ''The mercy of Christ to and for us—and our demonstration of that mercy to those within and outside the Body of Christ is the key to the future of the Church, to mission and stewardship, to living our Christian lives together in love and forgiveness, to moving boldly and confidently into the future with courage in the Gospel.'' Matthew Harrison. <ref> [http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?part_no=124313 Christ Have Mercy: How to Put Your Faith in Action.]</ref>

== Pentecost ==

[[Pentecost]] is seven weeks after Resurrection Sunday. Those seven weeks are celebrated as the Season of Easter in the [[Catholic Church]].

== External links ==
[http://www.catholicexpert.com/easterprayer.htm Easter Prayers]
== See also ==

*[[Ascension of Christ]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Observances]][[category:Holidays]]

User talk:OconnorM

2012-04-06T20:09:39Z

OconnorM: Created page with " == should I have written it here? == hello Every one.... not sure about wiki etiquette. Maria from London. originally from Dublin. Loves writing stories, articles, cooking and k..."

== should I have written it here? ==
hello Every one....
not sure about wiki etiquette.
Maria from London. originally from Dublin. Loves writing stories, articles, cooking and knitting

User:OconnorM

2012-04-06T20:08:49Z

OconnorM: Created page with "hello Every one.... Maria from London. originally from Dublin. Loves writing stories, articles, cooking and knitting."

hello Every one....

Maria from London. originally from Dublin. Loves writing stories, articles, cooking and knitting.