Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Law of Large Numbers

2012-03-18T11:59:53Z

RedGoliath: /* The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution */

==The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution==
You can't apply the Law of Large Numbers to a time series with a trend. That's just bad math, not a counterexample! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:11, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

:The Theory of Evolution, as it is commonly taught, does claim that some new species arose due to random fluctuations.
::Man. This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. So I'm not going to because I'll get 90/10'ed out the door. It's like an infinite manifold of wrongness. Just know this, you are applying probability theory -a theory you only partially understand- to evolution, a theory you completely don't understand. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:48, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

I will explain why I believe that the law of large numbers is not a good (and probably, to be honest, misleading) counterexample to evolution:
Evolutionists would argue that the hypotheses of the law of large numbers (that the random variables are independent and identically distributed) are not satisfied. I understand that the concept of i.i.d. is technical and difficult to explain, but it is nevertheless essential to the theorem. As an example, take the sample space <math>\{H, T\}</math> corresponding to flipping a fair coin once, and for each positive integer <math>i</math>, let <math>X_i</math> equal 1 if the outcome is <math>H</math> and 0 if the outcome is <math>T</math>. In other words, if the outcome is <math>H</math>, then <math>X_1 = X_2 = \cdots = 1</math>, and if the outcome is <math>T</math>, then <math>X_1 = X_2 = \cdots =0</math>. Note that <math>X_1, X_2, \ldots</math> are all Bernoulli random variables with parameter <math>p=\frac{1}{2}</math>, so they are identically distributed. However, it is clear that the law of large numbers does not hold, as <math>\frac{X_1 + \cdots + X_n}{n}</math> is always either 1 or 0. Therefore, independence is an essential hypothesis. In general, time series are not independent (imagine the Dow Jones index where the closing values are always independent and seeing the index go from 13000 one day to 175 the next!).

Random variables must be functions to the real numbers, so it is ambiguous what the statement "populations of species can randomly drift away from their 'mean'" is intended to mean without a quantification. Nevertheless, using height as a characteristic to measure for the sake of argument, it is clear why the law of large numbers does not hold. If we observe the height of a randomly selected member of a population each year, the observations are random variables. Nevertheless, evolutionists would provide two explanations for why the law of large numbers does not hold in this experiment. First, evolutionists would argue that factors like [[genetic drift]] allow for the events of one time period to affect the height distribution of a population in future time periods. Second, evolutionists would suggest that trends in random height suggest precisely the conclusion that the distribution of population heights is changing with each year, indicating that the random variables are not identically distributed. This suggests precisely the conclusion that the population is changing over time. By the way, looking at the statement of the weak law of large numbers, it is clear that if the random variables are not identically distributed (especially if they do not have the same mean), then the "mean" <math>\mu</math> in the statement of the theorem is completely meaningless, mathematically. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:06, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

:Folks, if it's so obvious that the Law of Large Numbers does not disprove the theory of random genetic drift -- which is central to the theory of evolution -- then it should be easy to explain in a few sentences free of jargon. Right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
::I'll give it a try. The law of large numbers requires the sample observations (such as heights) to come from the same distribution. Trends are seen in the heights over time. Evolutionists would argue that this may suggest that the distribution of heights in the population (and thus the population) is, in fact, changing over time (which would make the law of large numbers inapplicable to these observations). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:24, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

::Andy, you ever hear of something called a "one-way hash function"? It's a cryptographic (or loosely mathematical) term for something that's easy to solve in one direction, but a real pain to solve in reverse. Sort of like cubing versus finding the cube route. Anyway, you're laying out a one-way hash argument. Your statement is simple, but the disproof would require more effort than I'm willing to expend. But in brief, the human race may have a mean height, weight, skin tone... or whatever. If you take measurements at random intervals you will find that the mean is gradually changing, not that populations are gravitating back towards the original mean. And what do we call a change over time? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:33, 14 March 2012

::How about this for a short explanation. Microevolution (which has been observed to exist in the wild) relies on genetic drift. Since genetic drift it known to happen in microevolution the law of truly large numbers is either false, or it does not apply. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 18:15, 15 March 2012 (EDT)

Hello. It is very easy. Law of large numbers requires that <math>X_1,X_2,\dots</math> are independent (i.e. every finite subset of them is independent). Yet, a child has usually similar properties to an adult. Therefore <math>X_{i+1}</math> is not independent of <math>X_{i}</math>. It does not mean they are perfectly correlated - a child might sometimes be different from its parent. But they are definitely not independent, and therefore you cannot use the law. Using a mathematical theorem when assumptions are not fully satisfied will easily give you absurd conclusions - think what happens if you to use Pythagorean theorem in an acute triangle. --[[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:54, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Law of Large Numbers]] establishes that populations revert to their averages over time. Children of extraordinarly bright or athletic parents are, on average, not so extraordinary. Nothing said above disproves this logical truth. [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and other founders of [[evolution]] were weak in [[mathematics]] and [[probability]], and their reliance on random genetic drift is nonsensical as illustrated by the [[Law of Large Numbers]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::Genetic Drift wasn't described until the mid-1900s. How can Darwin have been reliant on it when proposing his theory? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 11:58, 18 March 2012 (GMT)

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-02-19T13:55:43Z

RedGoliath: /* Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. */

*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]


== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

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/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)

User:PhilipN

2012-02-09T20:55:39Z

RedGoliath:

{{userboxtop|Philip N.}}
{{Userbox|white|white|1800+|This user has made over 1800 edits to Conservapedia}}
{{Userbox|#DC143C|white|30|This user has blocked 30 vandals}}
{{User Vandalized|4}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{userboxbottom}}

'''''Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge''''' (2 Peter 1:5 [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Peter-1-5/]).

I am currently thinking about retirement from CP. 
Why ? 
Because I see in some senior admins a huge lack of qualities pretty important to me:
* [[Modesty]]: the simple article [[Conservapedia proven right]] is enough to prove the point
* [[Humility]]: Keeping to unreferenced belief while many contributors provide references that contradict the statement: (See [[Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]])
* [[Honesty]]: by claiming to be Christian and supporting an unfaithful greedy man
* [[Objectivity]]: we do not live in a black & white world where you can pack what you don't like (Atheists, evolutionists, Muslims, Sweden, Stalin, Hitler, Socialists, Liberals...) on one hand and what you like (Conservative, Christians (but not from all churches), Jesus) on the other.
* [[Charity]]: 'Love the Sinner Hate the Sin'. I can't see no love here, only hatred and contempt for those who do not share your beliefs
* [[Affability]] but only in one senior admin (or maybe he is many ?)

If you are aware of another Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia that respect those values, please let me know.

::I understand your position. The qualities you mentioned are at least partly missing from many higher ranked members here. The recent discussions about Atheists support for Underdogs has also gotten under my skin, not only the baseless assertions pushed, but the reactions of the admins when challenged, and their inability to answer questions straight.
::However, I don't treat this site as an Encyclopedia, but more as a blog to receive opinions, baseless or not. Shame you wish to leave, but it is, after all, your choice. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 20:55, 9 February 2012 (GMT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T16:52:28Z

RedGoliath: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-07T23:41:01Z

RedGoliath: /* Britain's hatred of the underdog */

United Kingdom

2012-02-07T18:38:04Z

RedGoliath: /* Sports and Pastimes */ Removal of material that I, as a British citizen, find false, heavily biased and rather insulting.

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club --Britain has a few scattered minor possessions but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

[[File:Children.jpg|390px|center|Seventh-day Adventists.]]

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2001 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

The UK is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]]

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, the oldest governing body in the world. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the prime minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the prime minister and cabinet--have full control of the House. If they lose control and new general election is held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system and there is no proportional representation. The upshot is that a third party with under 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|David Cameron]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]], now [[Church of England]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning", the Australian Bible study site Creation Ministries International ascribed the British riots of August 2012 to a "moral and social decline" that has been "the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting God and His Word."<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

Talk:United Kingdom

2012-02-06T19:25:56Z

RedGoliath: /* Moral Decline? */

==Name==

The Article states that Great Britain is a short form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Actually, Great Britain is the name of the largest Island in the United Kingdom, and should not be used to describe the whole country. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 09:28, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
::the article is correct. Please look at a dictionary. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
== Title ==
'Great Britain' redirects automatically to 'United Kingdom.' This is incorrect as the two terms are not interchangeable. The former is strictly the name of the Island which comprises the Mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, whereas the United Kingdom, is the name of a country, who's territory extends over many islands, including Northern Ireland. There should be a seperate article for 'Great Britain.'

:It is true that this difference needs to be made clear in the entry -- but there seems little sense in having a separate entry for two such overlapping entities! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That's a fair point I suppose!
Consider it done : )

:::I see that "Great Britain" still redirects here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] also redirects here, which is the entity before Ireland got its independence. I put the redirect there for now to simply allow articles like [[War of 1812]] to link to other articles, but someone who knows a lot on the history of those countries should fix it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: There are now separate articles for the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (the island is at [[Great Britain]]) and the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]]. If someone has time it might be useful to have articles for pre-Union [[Kingdom of England|England]], [[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]] and [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]]. I think it would be useful for all of them to have a notice at the top pointing to this article as the present day successor state. [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 19:34, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::: There's already articles on [[England]] and [[Scotland]] and more than one on [[Ireland]]. Do these not suit the purpose? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:44, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

==Currency==
Not changed the article text but I'm 99% sure that while English money is legal tender in Scotland, NI et al the reverse isn't true - can anyone confirm this & if so amend the article appropriately? [[User:Tracy C Copeland|Tracy C Copeland]] 13:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The paragraph, as it is, is ok and correct - you could expand it if you wanted to, but the situation's a little complex:
:*Bank of England coins are legal tender throughout the UK.
:*Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales (and possibly Channel Islands & Isle of Man).
:*Channel Islands & Isle of Man notes and coins are only legal tender those jurisdictions.
:*Scottish & NI notes aren't legal tender anywhere.
:*So no notes are legal tender in Scotland & NI at all.
:But "legal tender" doesn't really mean anything. All the forms of currency are perfectly acceptable anywhere in the UK - you'd have a hard time convincing a court that you had a right not to accept Scottish notes (for payment of debt) just because they aren't "legal tender". I got this information from [http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/faqs.htm here], [http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html here] and [http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/site/Corporate/Home/Corp_faq.asp here] --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::* The Bank of England doesn't produce coins, that's the Royal Mint.
::* Only in England and Wales does the concept of 'legal tender' exist. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man are not part of the UK.
::* Yes.
::* As above, Under Scots Law and Northern Irish law there is a broader concept of what is 'legal tender' as it doesn't technically exist under their law.
::* Scottish and Northern Irish notes are usually accepted thoughtout the United Kingdom, although sometimes an explanation is required.
:: [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 13:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==Anthem==
Wales is the only country of the UK to have an official national anthem. Scotland hasn't ("Flower of Scotland" is definitely not official), England hasn't, and "God Save the Queen" is not even the official anthem of the UK. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article has a superfluous "The" in the title. ==

Have no problems with the article but why is the title "'''The''' United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom"? After all there are not articles for "'''The''' People's Republic of China" or "'''The''' United States of America".

Perhaps someone could move the page to "United Kingdom"...? It would then be more consistent with other names, easier to search for, and easier to link to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 19:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Since "United Kingdom" redirects to "The United Kingdom" searching and linking shouldn't be a problem but I agree it should probably be changed for consistency. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Darts? ==
I live in the U.K. and last time i looked darts was not a popular sport.{{unsigned|Nick227}}
:Yes, it is. Most local pubs have a dart board with many having darts teams. A quick look at the top darts players shows the vasy majority are British. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]
:I would agree with that. It's not as popular to watch as football or cricket or rugby, but I would guess that nearly as many people play darts in a week as play football. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:33, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Religion ==

Hey im British and im a little concerned on the whole religion thing. The table says that over 70% of people are christian which is probably true however the article doesn`t explain that most people do not go to church, no more than 2 million people in the uk still go to chuch. We also have very liberal social policies, we support science, we support gay rights (they can have civil ceromonies, join the army ,there are discrimination laws to protect them and most people now accept them), we are pro choice. The Uk is a very liberal country in comparison to the US but this table makes us sound more conservative than the US which it is not.

Politically all of the three mainstream parties are more liberal than the US democrats as the conservative party has moved to the centre left since the introduction of the human rights Act 1998. If I can source all this would it be a problem to include it? Yours --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Source and include it, please and thank you! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Government Section ==

The section on government now carries a lengthy discussion on recent developments in the politics of Northern Ireland - would this be better having its own section or moved to its own article? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:54, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: It probably should be moved to its own article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:55, 21 December 2007 (EST)

:I just did this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==England v United Kingdom==
A lot of the history in this article is really the history of England. That's a problem as we need to separate the UK from England in people's mind. We either need to write about the history of all four constituent countries (not really practical at this stage) or restrict ourselves to history of the UK after union. I suggest the latter. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Principal government officials ==

I edited this sub-section to add the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are unquestionably principal government officials. Another editor deleted the names of these people but kept the names of two diplomats (ambassadors to the US and UN), who are comparatively minor officials.

That's a bit peculiar. Any comments before I revert that editor's edits? From a UK perspective, a list of principal government officials would include the PM, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and probably Home Secretary. The Mayor of London and the First Minister of Scotland have a much higher public profile than any ambassador. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== A name change with no change? ==

The article now includes the following:
{{QuoteBox|The official name of the country (since 1922) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. ... From 1801 to 1922 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.}}
I assume that one of these versions is in correct.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

:Neither is correct. Although the [[Irish Free State]] seceded in 1922, the name was not changed by Act of Parliament for another five or so years - I think 1927, but will check. Up to that point the name was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:16, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:In fact is says this in the opening paragraph. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Jedi Knights? not ==

The "Jedi Knight" response to the religion question was an organized hoax. Amusing indeed, but not an indicator of religious affiliation. see [http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.asp details] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:50, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Politics ==

Someone really needs to update the section that talks about the MPs, especially since so many of them are walking now.

Also (although completely unrelated), the descriptors of "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" need to be changed to show that there actually is a difference between them and that the terms are not interchangeable. I would suggest adding in a descriptor of "British Isles" as well, since that has a third meaning. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 19:56, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

== Moral Decline? ==

Can we remove this pointless section from an otherwise good article? Being British, it's quite insulting that such a baseless claim is added, with no real evidence. I actually live in Britain, and I see no evidence in moral decline. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:30, 6 February 2012 (GMT)
:I tend to agree. If people want to know what the cork hat wearers at CMI think of the UK, they can go on the CMI website. We have no need to parrot them.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Me too. I've visited a couple of times and while I wasn't impressed at all the drunkenness I saw, the UK seems to be doing pretty much fine. It certainly has a lot less crime than the USA, which is a big indicator of immorality. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 12:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::Who do I contact to remove the section? I don't want to do it myself, because someone with blocking rights might mistake me for a vandal. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 19:25, 6 February 2012 (GMT)

Talk:United Kingdom

2012-02-06T16:30:54Z

RedGoliath: Moral Decline?

Talk:Essay: Did Conservapedia weigh down American Atheists' web traffic?

2012-02-01T14:23:08Z

RedGoliath:

Why must you have such an informally rude tone to the atheist community? You know, you have the right to go around disproving their beliefs, but don't overgeneralize by attacking their personal life or physical health and say they're all fat (it seems heavily implied). This essay is just really rude--you seem to take delight in seeing crestfallen children, even if they are atheists. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 01:59, 1 February 2012 (EST)
:That's just how [[user:Conservative]] operates. Most people ignore him and I suggest you do the same. He does not speak for Conservapedia. No point in getting involved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:03, 1 February 2012 (EST)
::This is blatantly false. So many of [[user:Conservative]]s articles are represented on the front page. I predict that CPs most viewed articles were either produced solely or in part by him. Not only does he speak for CP, he's essentially the voice of CP! I urge him to stop all this nonsense and produce some decent quality articles, but last time I tried he didn't respond. The essays are badly written, horribly laid out, unnecessarily provocative and pointless. [[user:Conservative]], please consider making your own blog and stop polluting this encyclopedia. --[[user:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 14:22, 1 February 2012 (GMT)
There is no reason for most overweight atheists to be crestfallen. Just get off the coach and jog around the block. Exercise increases endorphins in the brain which cheers people up. WebMD: "Improved self-esteem is a key psychological benefit of regular physical activity. When you exercise, your body releases chemicals called endorphins. These endorphins interact with the receptors in your brain that reduce your perception of pain. Endorphins also trigger a positive feeling in the body, similar to that of morphine. For example, the feeling that follows a run or workout is often described as "euphoric." That feeling, known as a "runner's high," can be accompanied by a positive and energizing outlook on life."[http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/exercise-depression] Atheists have higher suicide rates (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]]). Perhaps if more overweight atheists got off the coach and spent more time in the gym, there would be less depression among the general atheist population. Also, exercise gives you a feeling of machismo which is something that many atheists do not have (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?]]). :)

Second, consider this: Psalm 14:1-3 "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one." Also, Proverbs 26:1: "Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool." So it appears as if the Bible is saying that foolish atheists do not deserve to be given honor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:36, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== Santa ==

Could somebody please remove the whole Santa-thing? As I understand it, Conservapedia also serves as an educational ressource for children. I think you should leave their believe in Santa alone and not crush it, by calling it "a big fat lie". The actual [[Santa]] article on this site is much more diplomatic by calling Santa a "legend". If somebody does remove the Santa-thing I would also kindly ask, that this section be removed, so as to keep the legend alive. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:13, 1 February 2012 (EST)

User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists

2012-01-30T13:57:42Z

RedGoliath: /* Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? */

==Question 1: How can a major mutation happen while transitional states are not viable ?==
While eyes or wings are undoubtedly advantages, those evolutions did not happen in 1 generation. And, as it is often quoted, Evolution is blind. How 10% of an eye or 10% of a could have been be useful ?

:The transitional states ARE viable, and the eye is a very good example of that. The first "eye" was just a primitive patch of photosensitive cells on a creature's head that could tell light from dark. This became more complex, becoming a concave eye cup capable of telling the direction of light. Eventually, a clear covering for the eye cup developed to protect it. That clear coating played the role of a lens soon enough, and the eye became capable for the first time of resolving images.

The question should not be "What would you do with 10% of an eye?" Instead, ask "What would you do with an eye 10% as good as the one you've got! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:37, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 2: How can speciation happen without geographic separation ?==
: Geographic separation is the best way to get two groups of the same species to evolve differently from one another. However, any phenomenon which causes two groups to stop interbreeding can cause speciation. The term for it is sympatric speciation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 3: Who was the first Homo Sapiens ?==
Was his father a homo sapiens as well ?

::There was no "first" ''Homo sapiens''. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution works through gradual changes within a '''population''' over generations. The "boundary" of speciation is not a defined threshold. Rather, speciation occurs gradually as allele frequency and genomic structure changes subtly, within a population, from one generation to the next. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 4: How would an evolutionist define a specie ?==
Is it even possible to do so ?
::Taxonomy is a human construct designed to make classifying animals easier. When two groups of animals can no longer interbreed, we usually call them different species, but the universe doesn't give a wet slap what we call animals, and indeed many "separate" species can interbreed to make hybrids. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 5: How is Evolution more scientific than Creation ?==
How isn't it a question of faith?

:Evolution was formalized by careful study of natural evidence, and not widely accepted as a valid theory until large amounts of supporting data were found, and the theory was altered and fleshed out, a process still continuing today. There is no part of the evolutionary theory that is not subject to question or debate, as long as the evidence for an argument can be presented. This is the scientific process, and the theory of evolution is one of humanity's crowning achievements in the sciences. There is no such thing as "evolutionary dogma."

Creationism uses as its primary source of information the vaguely worded and most likely metaphorical creation story in Genesis. Creationism explains nothing about how life developed, only that it was put here by means that could never be tested or verified. Central to creationist belief is the historical truth of the Genesis account, but since there exists no evidence that could prove or disprove a supernatural source of the first life on Earth, it is a position one must take on faith alone.

In other words, Evolution is a properly vetted scientific theory which can be tested, and Creationism is a religious position that does not attempt to explain specific evidence of the Earth's age or of the provenance of animals, relying instead on faith in the Genesis account.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

==Question 6: Is evolution a science ?==
As defined by wikipedia, ''Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe''. 
Is is testable ? Can we do predictions over millions of years ? And finally, could the falsehood of the theory be proven ?

==Question 7: Some great advantages are not very often seen==
Why is that we do not see many big-brain species, it seems to be a pretty good strategy.

==Question 8: What is the evolutionary advantage of Art ?==

==Question 9: Is Evolution unfalsifiable ?==

==Question 10: Is Evolution exempt of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?==

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy increases over time in a closed system. Evolution does not violate this. A common creationist misconception is that evolution absolutely requires new information. However, this is not always the case. A simple change to a number of already existing genes can bring about big changes to the organism. For example, tetrapod limbs are said to have evolved from fish fins. This was a change of already existing information, and not an increase in the amount of information. Therefore, not only is the accusation incorrect, but the accusation also works off of a strawman argument. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:57, 30 January 2012 (GMT)

==Question 11: How would you explain self-destructive behavior ?==
Smokers, drug addicts, alcohol drinkers should not survive and should not attract the opposite sex.

==Question related to Evolution but not challenging the theory==

===Question A: According to Evolution, degrading biodiversity does not matter===
According to evolutionists, there has already been many great extinction followed by explosion of diversity. If so, It does not really matter if we degrade biodiversity, it will be fixed by itself.

===Question B: According to Evolution, a human is not more important than a cockroach===
So why should we kill cockroaches and not humans ?

===Question C: Is Evolution compatible with the Soul ?===
If yes, how did it begin ? Did homo habilis have a soul ?

===Question D: What do you find illogical with creationism ?===

===Question E: What is the purpose of life ?===

User:ScottDG

2012-01-27T16:00:34Z

RedGoliath:

[[File:Chopping down evolutionary belief.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Question evolution! campaign]] ]]
An advocate of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his [[Question evolution! campaign|Question evolution!]] axe at the rotten tree of [[evolution|evolutionism]] and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer] so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, [[Critical thinking|critical reasoning]] and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/10/question-evolution-campaign-axman.html]

See: [[Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign|Responses to the Question evolution! campaign]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

==My Blocking==

Hi ScottDG, I am just curious as to why you have accused me of trolling.

Adam

:Sorry, I see that you made a mistake, and that now I have just made one myself! Thanks for unblocking.

User:ScottDG

2012-01-27T15:59:26Z

RedGoliath: Question fo ScottDG

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-01-27T15:54:52Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 956973 by Cheetahs1990 (talk) Vandalism

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref><ref>[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]</ref> (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of "hope" and "change". In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]], [[Marxism]], and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]
</ref> Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.<ref>[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf</ref> has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting.

Fatalities in Afghanistan have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf (pg. 3 pdf)]</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx</ref>

==Early life==
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It has been disputed by some groups whether Obama was actually born in the United States; some people allege that he was born in Kenya. On April 27, 2011 Obama officially released his long form birth certificate, which many experts have determined to be a fake and no legal body has determined its authenticity .

==Illinois State Senate career==
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]

In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref> He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html</ref>

==U.S. Senate career==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]

Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - "frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."<ref name="nyt senate">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref>
===Campaign for the Presidency===
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.

====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

==Presidential career==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html</ref>

===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic plan====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page</ref><ref name="celente2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html</ref><ref>http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

=====Healthcare=====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>

====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/]
</blockquote>

====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>

=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. </ref><ref>[http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011.</ref><ref>S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012.</ref><ref>Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>

=====Mexico=====

In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort.

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

=====Iraq=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
Obama campaigned on a promise to carry out [[George W. Bush]]'s timetable to end the War in Iraq, which has been completed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Talk:Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?

2012-01-27T15:52:47Z

RedGoliath:

Deleting the talk page was a good start. Now you should delete the article too. It's kind of embarrassing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 02:45, 27 January 2012 (EST)
:Yes, it is embarrassing for liberal atheists - especially the [[Soviet Union]] section. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:05, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::This has been bugging me for a while, so I'm finally going to ask it... Why are you wasting your time creating these pointless essays? I know your overall contribution to this site is genuine and meaningful, but this constant stream of pointless essays on atheism comes across as petty and I can't help but think that they are there simply for provocation. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:06, 27 January 2012 (GMT)
::Imagine if, at the back of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was a series of poorly written essays by a single editor where he compares groups he doesn't like to animals, insults their appearance, and includes numerous photos with captions like, "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?" [sic] I imagine that such an inclusion might be considered a joke, something planted by a prankster, without the knowledge of the other editors. If only we could say the same here.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:26, 27 January 2012 (EST)
:::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::Or then again, maybe not every book or website ending in -pedia has to have the same policies just because they have -pedia in the name. Could people please try to be a bit more open-minded?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:46, 27 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I would be perfectly happy to see well thought-out, well written and informative essays put up on this encyclodpedia. But as I stated previously, these essays are nothing more than petty, provocative ramblings. In my mind it's more like vandalism than worthwhile editing. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:51, 27 January 2012 (GMT)

Talk:Essay: Are atheists smarter than the average bear?

2012-01-27T15:06:41Z

RedGoliath:

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-24T01:14:46Z

RedGoliath: /* Open question to readers of this page */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433 Source: Christian Post] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Kenny, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Ha, ha, '''diagnosises'''. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and <s> </s>. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''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'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:''Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?''
:*Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]], as so much is written here about it already.
:*Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these ''unanswerable'' question. And even ''incorrect'' answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
:*You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
:*And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

::''The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem.''
::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:::''And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. '' To write this sentence on the talk-page of an article in which the 15 questions '''''are''''' answered reminds me of the announcement of [[Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf]] (a.k.a. '''Baghdad Bob''', '''Comical Ali''') who claimed that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates while American soldiers were already all over the city. If you fail to understand the reference, I'll spell it out for you: your statement is highly ironic.
:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:::Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

::::::After almost ten days, I think it's safe to interpret his failure to submit scientific evidence in support his position as an admission of defeat. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:46, 23 January 2012 (EST)

::::::I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)

User:Rickyjordanturner48

2012-01-15T22:30:27Z

RedGoliath:

Hi, I'm from England, and hope to contribute to articles about English politics and intellectuals, while exposing the left-wing agenda that is so prevalent in this country as well.

:Good to have another Englishman aboard! --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 22:30, 15 January 2012 (GMT)

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-14T14:30:07Z

RedGoliath: /* Open question to readers of this page */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433 Source: Christian Post] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Ha, ha, '''diagnosises'''. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''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'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:''Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?''
:*Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]], as so much is written here about it already.
:*Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these ''unanswerable'' question. And even ''incorrect'' answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
:*You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
:*And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

::''The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem.''
::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:::''And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. '' To write this sentence on the talk-page of an article in which the 15 questions '''''are''''' answered reminds me of the announcement of [[Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf]] (a.k.a. '''Baghdad Bob''', '''Comical Ali''') who claimed that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates while American soldiers were already all over the city. If you fail to understand the reference, I'll spell it out for you: your statement is highly ironic.
:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:::Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

User talk:TonyPark

2012-01-14T01:37:09Z

RedGoliath: /* Um... */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:19, 7 January 2012 (EST)}}

==Block of Adambro==
Have you used the checkuser tool for that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:22, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't believe I have access to the CheckUser tool. It's under Special Pages, right? I wasn't able to find it. My decision to block Adambro came from analyzing his contributions. He has a large number of very minor edits and talk page posts, mostly pushing liberal POV. He also seemed to clean up the vandalism within a minute of each attack happening, as though he were trying to "build cred" with the site. Mostly, he was an argumentative liberal nitpicker who didn't feel the need to contribute anything to the site. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:34, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::By the way, I just check your contributions and I wonder how fast you got your block rights: 1st article on the 6th, then mostly contributions in [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] that shows how much you love your [[pseudo-science]] of [[Evolution]], then you got your block rights on the 9th ! I unblocked Adambro‎, feel free to discuss the matter with me. Reverting vandalism in less than 2 minutes does not prove anything. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:35, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not interested in a blocking war with you. I blocked Adambro out of a genuine concern that he is a deep-cover parodist. My belief in evolution is irrelevant. I think it is very curious that he was able to revert long stretches of vandalism by two vandals with very similar names almost immediately after they happened. If you could do me a favor, run CheckUser on Adambro, BL4NK3R, and BU99ERY and make sure that they don't have similar IPs. Thanks. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'm not interested neither in a blocking war. I just feel we shouldn't block users without valid accusations. You made a good case and Adambro should be warned and monitored but I don't feel he deserved an infinite block (except if he really is a sockpuppet). Twice he reverted vandalism really quick but this does not prove anything, I have done that before. I do not have the rights to use the checkuser, you may want to check this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50 list]. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:02, 11 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the help and information. I will be more cautious from now on. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:18, 11 January 2012 (EST)

::::::You are welcome but be careful, I haven't seen a lot of people win an edit war against a senior admin, however legitimate it may be.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:42, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Um... ==

How can you block people who don't have a first name and last initial username when you yourself don't follow the policy? You're banning innocent users that want to join. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 17:54, 13 January 2012 (EST)

My real name is Anthony Parker, so TonyPark is a perfectly acceptable name under the policy, the point of which is to keep frivolous, anti-intellectual usernames out. Besides, its not like I permanently banned them, they can just go and make a new account with an acceptable user name. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Actually, he can, and will, unblock himself. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:26, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Then he'll come after you. [[User:SammyP|SammyP]] 20:27, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yeah, but he knows he has lost the respect of this site, blocking me is irrelevant.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:33, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::From what I see, he has no right to take any action against you. If he were to take action, it would do little more than further reveal his questionable tactics on this site. However, I can't help but feel that blocking him was an act of provocation. If he decides to block you, it would be your own doing, even if it isn't deserved. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:36, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

== Awesome ==

That was a very good block. Thanks! [[User:ThankYouTonyPark|ThankYouTonyPark]] 20:28, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-14T01:17:04Z

RedGoliath: /* Open question to readers of this page */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433 Source: Christian Post] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Ha, ha, '''diagnosises'''. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''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'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:''Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?''
:*Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]], as so much is written here about it already.
:*Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these ''unanswerable'' question. And even ''incorrect'' answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
:*You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
:*And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T17:28:06Z

RedGoliath: /* What a creationist would reply */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::"Who did it produce with?" - Your question presupposes that there had to be two distinct sexes. My following point will be an educated guess. It may not be right, but it's just an example of how the different sexes could have occured.
:::::If you take a look at flowers, you'll find that each flower has both male and female reproductive organs. This is pretty much universal over all plant species. Animals on the other hand, tend to have distinct males and females (at least, most vertebrates). This would imply that the separate reproductive organs were present before plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor. The common ancestor would likely have both pairs of organs, as plants do today. Plants, perhaps, never lost this trait. However, at some point after the divergance, animals became distinctly male and female (again, at least in vertebrates).
:::::As you know, organisms need energy, and the more body parts and organs you have, the more energy you require. Could it be that in animals, organisms in a species started to become specialised for which organs they used? In half of a population, the female rep. organs were slightly reduced, and vice versa. This would mean that the organisms required less energy. They would all still have both pairs of organs, but one would be reduced. Soon, two sexes would form, as one type of sexual organ would have been reduced/lost in each group.
:::::Again, this is not fact, merely my suggestion. Add to it if you wish, or point out how this would be wrong/unlikely. Hope this helps.
:::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T23:43:41Z

RedGoliath: /* What a creationist would reply */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T23:07:13Z

RedGoliath: /* What a creationist would reply */

In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===
===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===

Age of the Earth

2012-01-10T16:27:55Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 952604 by Adambro (talk) (Unnecessary Edit)

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000-10,000 years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and scientists who argue that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. The biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', that provides much of the scientific evidence in support of a young Earth.

The fatal flaw in Old Earth arguments is their overreliance on the assumption that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] remains constant over thousands of years. In fact, a large number of physical processes, such as neutron capture and fluctuations in solar radiation can affect the rate of radioactive decay of elements in the Earth's crust and render radioactive dating measurements unreliable.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], while not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-10T15:01:46Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 952595 by Cengime (talk) (Unnecessary Edit)

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The eccentricity of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref> The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal] [Dead link]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Rick Santorum

2012-01-09T23:33:22Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 952481 by Jukh (talk) (Vandalism)

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Rick Santorum''' (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958 - ) is an American lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

<blockquote>
Santorum was an author and floor manager of the landmark "Welfare Reform Act" which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. Senator Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion" as well as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", and the "Combating Autism Act" because he believes each and every individual has value and the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. <ref> [http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick Why Rick?]</ref>
</blockquote>

A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "[[Santorum Amendment]]" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to undermine curricula which present the [[theory of evolution]] in a dogmatic way, but amendment opponents said it the language would have the effect of supporting the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s, which they regard as [[Creationism]] rather than as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Santorum is currently a candidate for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential Election]].
==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] became obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argued that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they knew the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. Since they had no legitimate arguments, they could only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks.
==Dan Savage==
Homosexual advice columnist [[Dan Savage]] instigated a campaign on [[Google]] to associate Santorum's name with vile slang. By enlisting the help of readers of his column, mostly college students experimenting with sexual deviancy, he redirected legitimate searches for Santorum's name to a slanderous website he created, urging people to spread the candidate's name as a vile Internet meme. That children are often the first to absorb new Internet content was apparently of no concern to the gay rights activist, who also encouraged writers to his newspaper column to address him as "Dear Faggot."<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340</ref>

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606</ref>, Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

<blockquote>
In the [[Iowa]] caucuses, January, 3, 2012, Santorum and [[Mitt Romney]] Fight to a Draw. In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes, offering Rick Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mitt Romney. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Vote] </ref>
</blockquote>

Rick Santorum and his wife Karen are the parents of seven children: Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter, Patrick and Isabella.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Rick Santorum

2012-01-09T23:32:57Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 952482 by Jukh (talk) (Vandalism)

[[Image:Rick Santorum.jpg|right|thumb|Rick Santorum]]
'''Rick Santorum''' (Winchester, Virginia, May 10, 1958 - ) is an American idiot lawyer and politician. He is member of the Republican Party. Santorum served as [[United States]] [[Senator]] from [[Pennsylvania]] from January, 1995 through January, 2007. During that time, Santorum was known for his [[conservative]] political views. In 2000, he was elected by his peers to the position of Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

<blockquote>
Santorum was an author and floor manager of the landmark "Welfare Reform Act" which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce. Senator Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as "Partial Birth Abortion" as well as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act", the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act", and the "Combating Autism Act" because he believes each and every individual has value and the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. Senator Santorum fought to maintain fiscal sanity in Washington before it was in fashion, fighting for a balanced budget and a line item veto. <ref> [http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick Why Rick?]</ref>
</blockquote>

A [[cult]]-like movement among [[liberals]], and particularly [[homosexual]] activists, vilified Santorum for his forthright and truthful statements. In the Senate, Santorum stood for traditional values, and fought for [[traditional marriage]]. His "[[Santorum Amendment]]" to the No Child Left Behind Act sought (albeit unsuccessfully) to undermine curricula which present the [[theory of evolution]] in a dogmatic way, but amendment opponents said it the language would have the effect of supporting the teaching of [[intelligent design]] in [[public school]]s, which they regard as [[Creationism]] rather than as a legitimate scientific theory.

In 2006 [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], the [[liberal]] son of a popular former Pennsylvania governor who had been [[pro-life]], defeated Santorum as part of a [[Democratic]] sweep in that election. Casey subsequently endorsed pro-[[abortion]] [[Barack Obama]] for president in 2008.

Santorum is currently a candidate for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 Presidential Election]].
==Liberal Obsession with Santorum==

[[Liberals]] became obsessed with Santorum, particularly after he stood up for traditional marriage and drew an analogy between support for [[homosexual marriage]] and other illegal forms of marriage and conduct. Rather than dispute the analogy, liberals were quick to [[liberal tricks|feign offense]]. They argued that because the other kinds of conduct are so universally repulsive, pointing out the parallels with [[homosexual act]]s and homosexual marriage unduly disparages homosexuals. But they knew the ugly truth -- that homosexuality is just one step away on the slippery slope towards many other disgustingly immoral proclivities. Since they had no legitimate arguments, they could only resort to [[liberal namecalling]] and personal attacks.
==Dan Savage==
Homosexual advice columnist [[Dan Savage]] instigated a campaign on [[Google]] to associate Santorum's name with vile slang. By enlisting the help of readers of his column, mostly college students experimenting with sexual deviancy, he redirected legitimate searches for Santorum's name to a slanderous website he created, urging people to spread the candidate's name as a vile Internet meme. That children are often the first to absorb new Internet content was apparently of no concern to the gay rights activist, who also encouraged writers to his newspaper column to address him as "Dear Faggot."<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=340</ref>

==2012 Presidential Race==

On June 6, 2011<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE7551YL20110606</ref>, Santorum announced his intention to run for the Republican Party nomination in the US Presidential election of 2012.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55772.html</ref>

<blockquote>
In the [[Iowa]] caucuses, January, 3, 2012, Santorum and [[Mitt Romney]] Fight to a Draw. In the first Republican contest of the season, the two candidates were separated by only a sliver of votes, offering Rick Santorum a chance to emerge as the alternative to Mitt Romney. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/us/politics/santorum-and-romney-fight-to-a-draw.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Vote] </ref>
</blockquote>

Rick Santorum and his wife Karen are the parents of seven children: Elizabeth, John, Daniel, Sarah Maria, Peter, Patrick and Isabella.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Santorum, Rick}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Age of the Earth

2012-01-09T23:31:27Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 952480 by Jukh (talk) (Additions not factual)

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism|young-Earth scientists]], who believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000-10,000 years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and scientists who argue that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> The scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. The biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]'', that provides much of the scientific evidence in support of a young Earth.

The fatal flaw in Old Earth arguments is their overreliance on the assumption that the [[Radiometric dating|rate of radioactive decay]] remains constant over thousands of years.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], while not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-01-08T18:34:06Z

RedGoliath:

Talk:Atheism

2012-01-07T02:10:20Z

RedGoliath:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Atheism/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


==Is atheism protected by the First Amendment?==
I think this issue needs to be researched and clarified in the page. Thank you. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:53, 4 December 2011 (EST)
::I am not a lawyer who specializes in U.S. Constitutional law. Setting the issue of the law aside, I can tell you that there will be no protecting atheism from the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which will rip it to shreds.
[[File:Carcharodon carcharias.jpg|thumbnail|400px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution 15 razor sharp teeth] of the [[Question evolution! campaign]], are going to publicly rip your [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]] and atheism to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBRpZhk_vA open water] conditions. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. ]]

===This page is biased.===
:: The entire section on how to be a christian is extremely biased. There is nothing wrong with being athiest. I am a catholic by birth, and is that wrong? So why try to dissuade people from pursuing their belief in athiesm. This article needs to be revised. {{unsigned|Adsds141}}
::: Well, first learn how to spell "atheist". Also, what is so rewarding about atheism? Atheists have no holidays, after all!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:05, 6 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Why would you try to dissuade people from drinking alcohol? Atheism can be a dangerous thing in the wrong mind. [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 02:09, 7 January 2012 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2012-01-07T02:00:08Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 951908 by RedGoliath (talk) (Mistake on my part. Apologies)

Talk:Atheism

2012-01-07T01:58:13Z

RedGoliath: Undo revision 951907 by Adsds141 (talk)(Unnecessary Addition)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-01-04T13:48:37Z

RedGoliath: Another counterexample.

[[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 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 only about 15%.
==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...

===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.

===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.

== 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]]

Crocodile

2012-01-03T18:27:09Z

RedGoliath: Minor edit

{{Taxonomy
|name=Crocodile
|image=Americancrocodile.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Crocodilia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Crocodylidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=Crocodylus Osteolaemus
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=C. acutus C. cataphractus C. intermedius C. johnsoni C. mindorensis C. moreletii C. niloticus C. novaeguineae C. palustris C. porosus C. rhombifer C. siamensis O. tetraspis
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, form the family Crocodylidae. Crocodiles are found in areas of higher temperature, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>.

In the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]], crocodiles emerged in the late [[triassic]] period from early archosauromorphs.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile ''Crocodylus niloticus'' (Africa)
*American crocodile ''Crocodylus acutus'' ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile ''Crocodylus moreletii'' (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile ''Crocodylus rhombifer'' (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile ''Crocodylus palustris'' (India)
*Estuarine crocodile ''Crocodylus porosus'' (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile ''Crocodylus johnsoni'' (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile ''Crocodylus siamensis'' (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile ''Crocodylus mindorensis'' (Philippines)
*Orinoco crocodile ''Crocodylus intermedius'' (South America)
*New Guinea crocodile ''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' (New Guinea)
*Dwarf crocodile ''Osteolaemus tetraspis'' (Sub-Saharan Africa)

== Morphology ==

The name Crocodile came in Ancient Greece, and means 'lizard'. On external appearance, crocodiles resemble large aquatic lizards. However, Crocodiles, and other members of the family Crocodylidae are among the more biologically complex reptiles. Unlike most other reptiles, the Crocodiles possess a four-chambered heart, a feature mostly shown exclusively in birds and mammals. Other features include a diaphragm-like structure, again seen mostly in birds and mammals, and a cerebral cortex - the part of the brain mostly responsible for self-conciousness and the ability to learn. The crocodile, internally, is closer to that of a bird than to lizards, despite looking strikingly similar to other reptiles.

Members of the family Crocodylidae possess streamlined bodies and webbed feet, demonstrating its largely aquatic nature. However, most Crocodilians are also well adapted for terrestrial terrains. They can for example, run (or gallop) at speeds of up to 15 kph.

== Behaviour ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth. Hatchlings are precocial (able to fend for themselves at birth), though they stay with the mother for some time after hatching.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Crocodile Products ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat. In areas where Crocodiles are farmed, there is a strong incentive to protect the natural habitat in order to keep an effecient system where profit is sustained and the crocodile population and local food chains are unharmed.

== Danger to Humans ==
Three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans who enter the crocodile habitats.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== References ==
<references />

{{Template:Nb zl crocodiles}}
[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Crocodile

2012-01-03T17:20:59Z

RedGoliath: Deletion of info that describes only the behaviour of some Crocs and it applies it to all Crocs. Will later update with more appropriate detailing.

{{Taxonomy
|name=Crocodile
|image=Americancrocodile.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Crocodilia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Crocodylidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=Crocodylus Osteolaemus
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=C. acutus C. cataphractus C. intermedius C. johnsoni C. mindorensis C. moreletii C. niloticus C. novaeguineae C. palustris C. porosus C. rhombifer C. siamensis O. tetraspis
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, form the family Crocodylidae. Crocodiles are found in areas of higher temperature, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>.

In the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]], crocodiles emerged in the late [[triassic]] period from early archosauromorphs, at the same time as [[dinosaur]]s and true [[mammal]]s.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile ''Crocodylus niloticus'' (Africa)
*American crocodile ''Crocodylus acutus'' ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile ''Crocodylus moreletii'' (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile ''Crocodylus rhombifer'' (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile ''Crocodylus palustris'' (India)
*Estuarine crocodile ''Crocodylus porosus'' (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile ''Crocodylus johnsoni'' (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile ''Crocodylus siamensis'' (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile ''Crocodylus mindorensis'' (Philippines)
*Orinoco crocodile ''Crocodylus intermedius'' (South America)
*New Guinea crocodile ''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' (New Guinea)
*Dwarf crocodile ''Osteolaemus tetraspis'' (Sub-Saharan Africa)

== Morphology ==

The name Crocodile came in Ancient Greece, and means 'lizard'. On external appearance, crocodiles resemble large aquatic lizards. However, Crocodiles, and other members of the family Crocodylidae are among the more biologically complex reptiles. Unlike most other reptiles, the Crocodiles possess a four-chambered heart, a feature mostly shown exclusively in birds and mammals. Other features include a diaphragm-like structure, again seen mostly in birds and mammals, and a cerebral cortex - the part of the brain mostly responsible for self-conciousness and the ability to learn. The crocodile, internally, is closer to that of a bird than to lizards, despite looking strikingly similar to other reptiles.

Members of the family Crocodylidae possess streamlined bodies and webbed feet, demonstrating its largely aquatic nature. However, most Crocodilians are also well adapted for terrestrial terrains. Some can, for example, run (or gallop) at speeds of up to 15 kph.

== Crocodile Products ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat. In areas where Crocodiles are farmed, there is a strong incentive to protect the natural habitat in order to keep an effecient system where profit is sustained and the crocodile population and local food chains are unharmed.

== Danger to Humans ==
Three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans who enter the crocodile habitats.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== References ==
<references />

{{Template:Nb zl crocodiles}}
[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Reptile

2011-08-15T12:43:14Z

RedGoliath: Small edit

[[image: Alligator.png|thumb|right|300px]]

'''Reptiles''' are a class of [[ectothermic]] ("cold-blooded") [[animal]]s found throughout the world. Reptiles are [[vertebrate]]s, as they have an internal skeleton and a backbone. They are also amniotic tetrapods and their skin protects them from drying out. Common reptiles include [[Alligator|alligators]], [[Lizard|lizards]], [[Snake|snakes]], and [[turtles]].

[[Category:Reptiles]][[Category:Vertebrates]]

Guitar

2011-08-13T21:58:21Z

RedGoliath: Minor edit

[[Image:305px-Guitar_1.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Acoustic guitar]]

The '''guitar''' is a stringed [[musical instrument]] which is usually played with the fingers or a [[plectrum|guitar pick]]. Most guitars have six strings; however, there are many people who play guitars with four, seven and twelve strings.

The guitar's ability to play both chords and melodies make it a versatile instrument. The guitar can be found in many contemporary and classical styles of music such as: blues, rock, jazz, country, flamenco and romantic styles.

==Types of Guitar==
Guitars can be classified in a few different ways, such as differentiating their construction, playing range or their acoustic/electric quality.

===Construction===
Guitars may be classified as being [[acoustic]], semi-acoustic or [[electric]]. Acoustic guitars are usually made of wood, and produce sound based on the acoustics which resonate through the hollow chamber of the guitar. These guitars can be used in a live performance without amplification due to the resonance and volume the guitar chamber is capable of producing.

Semi-acoustic guitars are hollow-body acoustic guitars that have been equipped with an electromagnetic pickup so that they can be played either with or without amplification.

Electric guitars are also made out of wood but are usually not crafted in a hollow-body structure to allow the strings to resonate into the chamber. These guitars usually have electromagnetic pickups installed which are led to an [[amplifier]] to amplify the sound being played.

===Range===
Guitars can also be classified according to their range capabilities. Electric guitars have a 4-octave range, while bass guitars have a 3-octave range which is one-octave lower than the electric guitar's range. The range of these guitars may be altered by using guitars with twelve strings. This is commonly known as a doubled six-string guitar, however the second set of strings are tuned to an octave higher than the original strings. Therefore, this would add another octave to the guitar's upper range.

==Tuning==
There are many tunings used for the guitar around the world. There is however, a tuning commonly known as "standard tuning", being (low to high) EADGBE. This tuning has been considered as the standard since the late 18th century.<ref>http://www.guitarnoise.com/faq.php?id=23</ref> There are alternate tunings commonly used, such as drop-D tuning (lowering the sixth string by a whole tone to D), D modal tuning (DADGAD), open-C tuning (CGCGCE) and open-G (DGDGBD) tuning. The tuning of the guitar can have a noticeable effect on the timbral quality of the notes produced.

In standard tuning, the guitar has a usual range of four octaves, ranging from E2 to around E6 (on a 24-fret guitar). This standard range can be broadened by using basic guitar techniques such as bending a note to raise its pitch, or by using a vibrato-arm on an electric guitar to lower its pitch.

== See also ==

*[[Joaquín Rodrigo]]
*[[Classical music]]
*[[Stick (instrument)]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:String Instruments]]

Crocodile

2011-08-10T18:46:09Z

RedGoliath: Some more detail and correcting any errors

{{Taxonomy
|name=Crocodile
|image=Americancrocodile.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Crocodilia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Crocodylidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=Crocodylus Osteolaemus
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=C. acutus C. cataphractus C. intermedius C. johnsoni C. mindorensis C. moreletii C. niloticus C. novaeguineae C. palustris C. porosus C. rhombifer C. siamensis O. tetraspis
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, form the family Crocodylidae. Crocodiles are found in areas of higher temperature, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>.

In the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]], crocodiles emerged in the late [[triassic]] period from early archosauromorphs, at the same time as [[dinosaur]]s and true [[mammal]]s.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile ''Crocodylus niloticus'' (Africa)
*American crocodile ''Crocodylus acutus'' ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile ''Crocodylus moreletii'' (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile ''Crocodylus rhombifer'' (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile ''Crocodylus palustris'' (India)
*Estuarine crocodile ''Crocodylus porosus'' (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile ''Crocodylus johnsoni'' (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile ''Crocodylus siamensis'' (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile ''Crocodylus mindorensis'' (Philippines)
*Orinoco crocodile ''Crocodylus intermedius'' (South America)
*New Guinea crocodile ''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' (New Guinea)
*Dwarf crocodile ''Osteolaemus tetraspis'' (Sub-Saharan Africa)

== Morphology ==

The name Crocodile came in Ancient Greece, and means 'lizard'. On external appearance, crocodiles resemble large aquatic lizards. However, Crocodiles, and other members of the family Crocodylidae are among the more biologically complex reptiles. Unlike most other reptiles, the Crocodiles possess a four-chambered heart, a feature mostly shown exclusively in birds and mammals. Other features include a diaphragm-like structure, again seen mostly in birds and mammals, and a cerebral cortex - the part of the brain mostly responsible for self-conciousness and the ability to learn. The crocodile, internally, is closer to that of a bird than to lizards, despite looking strikingly similar to other reptiles.

Members of the family Crocodylidae possess streamlined bodies and webbed feet, demonstrating its largely aquatic nature. However, Crocodilians are also well adapted for terrestrial terrains. They can for example, run (or gallop) at speeds of up to 15 kph.

== Behaviour ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth. Hatchlings are precocial (able to fend for themselves at birth), though they stay with the mother for some time after hatching.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Crocodile Products ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat. In areas where Crocodiles are farmed, there is a strong incentive to protect the natural habitat in order to keep an effecient system where profit is sustained and the crocodile population and local food chains are unharmed.

== Danger to Humans ==
Three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India (for whom [[mugging|muggers]] are named) and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans who enter the crocodile habitats.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== References ==
<references />

{{Template:Nb zl crocodiles}}
[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Crocodile

2011-08-10T17:07:51Z

RedGoliath: Statement on crocodile tears is incorrect

Nephilimfree

2011-06-27T13:51:01Z

RedGoliath: Basic Info on Nephilimfree, a YT user I felt needed info on this website after all his efforts in refuting Evolution

Nephilimfree is a popular YouTube creationist who uses science and logical reasoning in analysing and refuting various Evolutionist claims. Subjects addressed by Nephilimfree include genetics (including the complex structure of DNA and cells), Geology, the fossil record (including the severe lack of transitional species), atheism and its downfalls, etc...

YouTube user DonExodus2 was one challenged to a debate by Npehilimfree, but when the time of the debate came along, atheist DonExodus2 failed to turn up, making Nephilimfree the victor by default. This is just one example of an athiest chickening out of a planned debate.