Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Heavy water

2009-02-11T19:34:00Z

Samd: sentence flow

'''Heavy water''', (chemical formula: 2[[Hydrogen|H]]2[[Oxygen|O]], or [[Deuterium|D]]2[[Oxygen|O]]) or '''deuterated water''', is [[water]] in which one or both of the [[hydrogen]] atoms in the water molecule has been replaced by [[deuterium]].

== Properties ==

Since deuterium is chemically identical to protium (normal hydrogen), heavy water generally behaves similarly to normal water; heavy water looks, feels, and tastes almost exactly the same as normal water. However, because a molecule of heavy water weighs more than a molecule of normal water, it freezes and boils at a slightly higher temperature than normal water. (Heavy water freezes at 3.8°[[Celsius|C]] and boils at 101.4°C, as opposed to 0°C and 100°C for normal water.)

Most living things cannot survive solely on a supply of heavy water. Many of the chemical reactions that occur in living things require absolute precision, in both amount of chemicals and the timing of their movement around various tissues. Heavy water, with its greater weight and, by extension, [[momentum]], does not allow these reactions to take place. Thus, while heavy water is not poisonous, it cannot support life on its own.

== Production ==

By far the largest source of heavy water is from [[Earth]]'s [[ocean]]s. A small percentage of the water in the oceans is heavy water. Heavy water plants simply pump in seawater and distill the heavy water from the normal water.

== Uses ==

Heavy water has a high [[neutron]] opacity, which means that it can absorb a large amount of neutrons without major damage to its chemical structure. During [[World War II]], the [[German]] [[Nazi]] government used heavy water to moderate their [[nuclear reactor]]s in their experiments to try to develop an [[atomic bomb]]. However, a raid on a heavy water plant in [[Norway]] greatly hindered the German efforts. Beside this, the Americans working on the [[Manhattan Project]] learned that [[graphite]] could moderate nuclear reactions much more efficiently than heavy water, and it had the added benefit of being a [[solid]], making it far easier to handle.

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Template talk:USPresidents

2009-02-11T19:29:49Z

Samd: and

==Talk==

Since there has only been one President Clinton, I think we should change "W. Clinton" to just "Clinton", to maintain the format of the rest of the names on the template. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 14:28, 11 February 2009 (EST)
:And probably the other ones, such as "A. Jackson" and "W. Wilson". [[User:Samd|Samd]] 14:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Template talk:USPresidents

2009-02-11T19:29:19Z

Samd: more

Template talk:USPresidents

2009-02-11T19:28:22Z

Samd: comment

Conservapedia:Checkuser

2008-11-02T02:30:01Z

Samd: link to Conservapedia:Check user

:''This page tells how to use the Check user function. For more information about what the Check user feature does, see [[Conservapedia:Check user]].''

Checkuser is very easy to use and you will likely need no instructions. However, if you need help here are the instructions:

1. Put the username in the empty user box. This will give you a IP address which is a number and will be located below the empty user box.

2. Click the IP address (which is a number which just appeared).

3. Given the amount of vandalism at Conservapedia, if the IP address check shows that the IP address is being used by two usernames the person is likely a [[Sockpuppets|sockpuppet]] who is using the same computer connection to edit Conservapedia. Please block that person and if a mistake was made the error can be easily undone. It is best to err on the side of caution however.

Gravitation

2008-11-02T02:08:46Z

Samd: minor cleanup

'''The theory of Gravity''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] explanation for the mutual attraction of particles that contain mass. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Sir Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton's]] naturalistic law of universal gravitation in his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']]. Issac Newton's current theory of gravity cannot explain the permutations of space and time as velocity of an object approaches the [[speed of light]]. [[Aristotle]], and other previous thinkers and scientists before Newton never proposed a mathematic explanation for attraction of masses.

Everything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass. The mechanism which transports this force has never been observed. Scientists have postulated the existence of a hypothetical particle, the [[graviton]], in order to uphold the naturalistic explanation absent of a supernatural force. The attraction depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between them. For normal objects, this pull is minute, but you can measure the pull between a very large object like the [[Earth]] and another object like you by standing on a scale. Your [[weight]] is the measure of the pull of gravity between you and the planet you are standing on. This [[force]] depends on your [[mass]] and the mass of that planet, but it also depends on your [[distance]] from the center of the planet. The further you are from the planet's center, the weaker the pull between it and your body. If you double your distance, the force is one quarter. At ten times the distance, the force is one hundredth. It drops off with the square of the distance. This is called the [[inverse square law]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html</ref>The force never becomes zero, no matter how far you travel.

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

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

Where:

''F'' is the magnitude of the gravitational force.

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

''r'' is the distance that separates the objects' centers of mass.

''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: 6.67428x10-11 N m2 Kg -2

Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[Earth]] and [[Sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

An objects escape speed is the velocity required to escape the gravitational pull of a another object, usually a planet. It can be expressed as:

:<math>v = \sqrt \frac{2 G M}{R}</math>

Where:

''v'' is necessary velocity

''M'' is the mass of the planet

''R'' is the radius of the planet

''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: 6.67428x10-11 N m2 Kg -2

==Gravity and Modern Physics==
Newton's [[Theory of Gravity]] was one of the supposed earliest triumphs of modern [[physics]]. It now stands as both one of the most successful and most mysterious areas of that field. It is one of the few scientific theories that does not require a supernatural force to sustain self consistency. On one hand, the [[Theory_of_Relativity|General theory of Relativity]] is one of the most successful [[Scientific_Theory|scientific theories]] to date. On the other hand, how General Relativity might be reconciled with [[Quantum_mechanics|quantum physics]] during the first few milliseconds of the [[Big Bang]] remains an open question, and is one of the hotly contested areas among modern theoretical physicists. In the 1980s [[string theory]] was seen by many physicists as a more likely path towards a particular unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces), but the theory has been a failure.<ref>Not Even Wrong, Peter Woit [http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/]</ref>

==See also==
*[[gravitational gradient]]

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
[[category:physics]]

Geocentric theory

2008-11-02T02:05:00Z

Samd: expanded

[[Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png|right|thumb|Rendition of a geocentric system from the Middle Ages.]]
The '''geocentric theory''' is a system for describing the universe with the assumption that [[Earth]] lies at its center. It was extremely popular from ancient times until the 1600s, as it had better agreement with observation than any alternative. [[Ptolemy]]'s model was particularly effective at cosmological predictions.

However, during the 1500s and 1600s, it became clear that the theory had some serious flaws in it. In particular, [[Galileo]]'s use of the [[telescope]] to look at the skies revealed that [[Jupiter]] had at least four moons, and Venus had phases like the [[Moon]]. The work of [[Johannes Kepler]] showed that planets had elliptical orbits. None of these observations could be adequately explained by a geocentric universe. When [[Isaac Newton]] applied his newly discovered [[gravitation|universal theory of gravitation]] to the data that Kepler collected, he found that a heliocentric model was the only one that could explain all observed phenomena. By the 1800s, the spectacular successes of Newtonian theory and [[Maxwell's equations]] for electromagnetism had convinced practically everyone that the Sun is a preferred frame of reference, and that the laws of physics must be applied in that frame. The geocentric theory was considered to be profoundly mistaken, and the [[Heliocentrism|heliocentric theory]] correct.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations.

== Scripture Quoted to justify Geocentric Theory ==
A few [[Bible]] quotes use geocentric terms. While some attempt to use these quotes to discredit the Bible's hold on science, others dispute this usage, claiming that the usage of the terms is similar to the way people today use terms like "sunrise" and "sunset". In this account, the terminology is not wrong - merely reflects the observer's view.

*"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)
*"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)
*"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)
*"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)
*"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
*"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)

[[Category:Astronomy]]

User:Samd

2008-11-02T01:53:37Z

Samd: added category

Um, hi. Welcome to my userpage.

I'm mostly used to editing [[Wikipedia]], which is how I found out about this site. I somehow read the article about this site on Wikipedia, and clicked on the link to it, looked around some, saw some typos and stuff, and I decided to see if I couldn't lend a hand here. I intend to mainly just fix random typos, tidy up pages, and maybe write a little. I'm also learning how to use Inkscape; once I figure it out, I'll probably try to make some diagrams for articles related to chemistry and nuclear physics, and maybe other stuff as well.

If you need to ask me something, or just want to say "Hi", feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

Cheers!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:05, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Wikipedians on Conservapedia]]

User talk:TerryH

2008-11-01T15:25:09Z

Samd: /* Slightly amused but no offense meant... */ reply

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives]]==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives#TerryH|your name]] so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestion|News suggestions]]. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives|suggestion archives]]. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#New_Suggestion|suggestions]]. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Sin (Fundamentalism)

2008-11-01T14:39:08Z

Samd: Spelling corrections, with the aid of Mozilla Firefox

: ''For a general discussion of the concept of sin and the view of it by other traditions, see [[Sin]].''

[[Sin (Fundamentalism)|Sin]], according to the teachings of most [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]], is at the root of the tendency to set one's own will in opposition to that of [[God]] and the general deficiency of our own moral character compared to that of God. God is Perfect and Holy, and thus cannot tolerate any kind of blemish in His Presence.

Sin refers both to action (or inaction) and state of being. A particular sin is an action or inaction that does not conform to God's character, and especially any action that is committed with the foreknowledge that it is contrary to [[conscience]] or [[morality]] or divine [[law]]. Humans have inherent knowledge of right and wrong that was obtained at the time [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] ate of the fruit of ''[[Fall of man|Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil]]''. We commit "sin" when our actions violate these instincts. It is through sinful acts that we fall short of [[God]]'s intended design and will.

Such behavior displeases God and causes us to be separated from Him. This, then, is the state of being that the word ''sin'' also stands for: a separation from God, resulting from the harm done to our relationship with Him.

[[Human]] laws or the codes of conduct of a society are not always in keeping with God-given morality, and we are not absolved from judgment on our actions because society views them as acceptable. The foreknowledge of right and wrong is something that all humans have, and life is itself something of a measure or test to see how we will use this knowledge.

== True Meaning ==
The Greek word translated ''sin'' in the New Testament is '''ἁμαρτία''' (''hamartia''). ''Hamartia'' does ''not'' mean "crime" or "guilt" only; it means a ''failure'' or a ''fault'' of some kind. It literally means ''a missing of the mark at target practice''.

More generally, ''hamartia'' means ''any deviation, no matter how slight, from a perfectly desirable design or outcome.'' Thus sin is ''any thought or act, however innocent in intention,'' that does not meet the Divine standard. This ''includes, but does not limit itself to,'' all negligent, reckless, knowing, and intentional misdeeds.

== Evidence for Foreknowledge of Right and Wrong ==
That any human being might be expected to know ahead of time what is right and what is wrong might seem incredible to any casual observer of human society; and, yet, the following points favor the notion of instinctual foreknowledge of violations of conscience:
*Any government promulgating a frankly murderous or otherwise oppressive policy toward any subset of its subjects must actively persuade its remaining subjects, usually through ''[[propaganda]]'', that such a policy is morally acceptable. The obvious example is [[Germany]] during the [[Second World War]]. In fact, many other examples, historical and modern, illustrate this point.
*No organized society has ever explicitly endorsed theft as a legitimate business practice.
*Attempts to ''justify'' such offenses as adultery, fornication, covetousness, or lying almost invariably fail. More typically, one caught engaging in such activity will try to ''excuse'' it by pleading some sort of extenuating or mitigating circumstance, or innocent intent (see above). Or else he will ''boast'' of his "right" so to act. Sadly, even some [[church]] leaders have taken such a brazen stance.
*By far the most salient statement concerning human foreknowledge of right and wrong comes from [[Paul]]. He wrote:
{{Bible quote|Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.|book=Romans|chap=1|verses=19-21|version=KJV}}

== Implications ==

The following are according to the most common interpretation of fundamentalist churches, but not universally accepted by other branches of Christianity.

=== The First Sin ===
The [[Creation]] story ends with God's evaluation of the earth:{{Bible quote|And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=31|version=KJV}}
The word rendered ''very'' means "truly," not "extremely." In essence, God made everything ''perfect.'' Sin did not exist in this world, not because the world had no moral context, but because the world was in perfect compliance with it. ''Nothing'' was in the world that God did not put into it.

The Fall of Man changed everything:{{Bible quote|And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=17|version=KJV}}

God had given [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] strict warning ''not'' to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This direct order from God provided the necessary moral context by which we recognize [[original sin]]--in essence, the ''first'' sin. By disobeying that order, Adam and Eve fell short. ''Thus sin came into the world.'' No longer, then, was the world "very good."

Two things then happened. First, Adam and Eve separated themselves from God. By so doing, they did "die"--spiritually, though not physically (at least not immediately). As mentioned above, God ''cannot'' tolerate sin in His Presence. Second, the world itself could no longer be perfect. By his sin, Adam sowed seeds of corruption, decay and decline, not merely for himself and Eve and their posterity but also for the entire world.

=== Condition of the World ===
==== Sin of the world ====
At first, the world was perfect. Now it is not. Indeed, prophecy says that it will never be perfect. Physical death exists in this world, and such death did not exist before. The explanation for untoward events traces back to this first event: God could no longer stay in the world to keep it running properly--and thus, like any engine or other machine left unattended, it began immediately to damage itself. This damage continues today.

Many [[creationist]] models incorporate this sin-induced damage as an explanation for such things as the long lifespans recorded prior to the flood, the origin of disease, predation and the apparent error of dating based on [[uniformitarian]] assumptions.

==== Reconciliation of the world ====
The world is an impersonal entity. It cannot be reconciled. Therefore, at an as-yet undetermined date in the future, God will destroy it:{{Bible quote|But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.|book=II%20Peter|chap=3|verses=10|version=KJV}}

And then God will make a new world in which He will never allow sin ever again: {{Bible quote|And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.|book=Revelation|chap=21|verses=1-5|version=KJV}}

{{Bible quote|For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.|book=Isaiah|chap=65|verses=17-25|version=KJV}}

Until then, the earth and the cosmos are fallen, and will continue to decline. Many [[creationism|creationists]] hold that the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] describes that decline in a mathematical way, and therefore that sin is the essence and trigger of [[entropy]]. Others would find it difficult to imagine a world in which the second law did not operate and instead would say that in the perfect state the outworking of entropy was counteracted by the direct intervention of God, as he might occasionally do even now. For example, consider this:{{Bible quote|And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.|book=Deuteronomy|chap=29|verses=5|version=KJV}}

=== Condition of Man ===
==== The sin condition ====
As has been seen, [[Adam]] effectively ruined the world by his disobedience. But he did more: he affected the condition of man himself. [[Paul]] describes it best:{{Bible quote|As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12}}

Before [[God]], every person is guilty, because everyone has fallen short. More than that, no one ''ever'' seeks after God without Divine help:{{Bible quote|No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:|book=John|chap=6|verses=44|version=KJV}}

==== Reconciliation ====
This ''total depravity'' of man (a position explained by [[John Calvin]]) is the reason why [[Jesus Christ]] had to come to earth and die. ''Without the shedding of blood, no remission of sin is possible.'' And no blood can suffice, except Jesus' own.

Now that this sacrifice has been made, salvation is available to anyone willing to accept it. ([[John Calvin]] held that the only ones who will accept salvation are those whom God saw fit to ''enable'' to accept it, while [[Jacobus Arminius]] holds that all men possess the free will to accept God's gift, or refuse it.) No action by man is necessary--''and no action by man would suffice.''

== Popular Misconceptions ==
Many persons, not necessarily in other religious traditions, confuse sin with ''wickedness.'' Wickedness is deliberate, intentional wrongdoing. A wicked person does more than merely miss the target--he deliberately aims wide of it as if out of spite. In any case, not being wicked is not enough. Since man cannot be perfect, he needs a substitutionary sacrifice--namely, that which [[Jesus]] provided.

Many religions include elaborate codes of conduct that represent attempts to present people with a target they can hit on their own power. But according to Fundamentalism, ''no one'' can hit God's target - to live without sinning requires total perfection of thought and deed, a standard no human has any possibility of achieving. Salvation from sin is by grace alone, through faith in [[Jesus Christ]], Who ''alone'' can say on anyone's behalf, "I paid his penalty in full, and I move that his deeds be stricken from the record."

== Related References ==
* [http://creationwiki.org/Sin Sin] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

User talk:TerryH

2008-11-01T14:37:35Z

Samd: /* Slightly amused but no offense meant... */ new section

Suite

2008-10-30T22:40:35Z

Samd: Redirecting to Suite (music)

#REDIRECT [[Suite (music)]]

John Galt

2008-10-30T22:38:51Z

Samd: sp

'''John Galt''' is one of the main characters in [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Rand's]] novel Atlas Shrugged.

An inventor by trade, Galt is the male hero of the story, by withdrawing his talents, 'stopping the motor of the world', and leading the 'strikers' against the 'looters'.

== His speech ==
''For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?

Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.

We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.

I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.

You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's impossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.

The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.''

[[category:literary figures]]

Nevada-class battleship

2008-10-30T22:35:25Z

Samd: sp

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:H45440.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Nevada''-class
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Career
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.png|48px|United States Navy Jack]]
|-
|-
| Class:
| ''Nevada''
|-
| Ordered:
| Fiscal Year 1912
|-
| Completed and commissioned:
| ''Nevada'', ''Oklahoma''
|-
! colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy;"| General characteristics
|-
| Displacement:
| 27,500 t
|-
| Length:
| 583 ft
|-
| Beam:
| 95 ft 3 in
|-
| Draft:
| 28 ft 9 in
|-
| Speed:
| 20.5 knots
|-
| Complement:
| 1,081 officers and men
|-
| Armament:
| Ten 14"/45 main guns in two triple and two twin turrets; Twenty-one 5"/51 guns in single casemate mountings
|}
The '''''Nevada''-class battleships''' carried the U.S. Navy's first triple gun turrets, a feature that would be seen in all but a few of its future battleship designs. Even more significantly, they introduced the so-called "all or nothing" armor scheme, in which protection of vital areas was optimized against heavy caliber guns, leaving other parts of the ship essentially unprotected. This reflected a growing awareness that improved gunfire controls would drive battleship engagements out to long ranges, where smaller guns would only serve to defend against torpedo and air attack. Thus, armor intended to counter those guns would be, at best, a waste of valuable weight. The basic concept of the ''Nevada's'' armor system was ultimately adopted by all naval powers.

These were also the Navy's first to have oil as their primary fuel and the last to have two propellers. ''Oklahoma'' represented the final use of reciprocating machinery. They originally were completed with a very large battery of five-inch guns to defend against enemy destroyers. However, several of those weapons, mounted near the bow and stern in very wet positions, were removed within a few years.

The ''Nevadas'' were active in the Atlantic before and during the [[First World War]], deploying to the European war zone in 1918 to help protect Allied supply lines. Their service continued after the "Great War", though by the early 1920s they were the oldest of the nation's main Battle Fleet units. Both were extensively modernized in 1927-29, receiving greater elevation for their heavy guns, modern gunfire controls in new tripod masts, and two catapults for scouting and observation airplanes. Their 5"/51 anti-destroyer guns were moved to dryer locations in the superstructure and a battery of 5"/25 anti-aircraft guns was added. Protection against shellfire, bombs and torpedoes was improved, increasing their width to nearly 108 feet.

Both ships were sunk in the 7 December 1941 attack on [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor]], with ''Nevada's'' experience proving that the watertight integrity of older warships was unlikely to be satisfactory. ''Oklahoma'' was a total loss, but ''Nevada'' was salvaged and again modernized during 1942, exchanging her old secondary battery for a new one of twin-mounted 5"/38 guns, plus many 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft machine guns. She served in both the European and Pacific theaters, providing gunfire support for amphibious operations. ''Nevada's'' final mission was as a [[Operation Crossroads|target]] for nuclear and conventional weapons in 1946-48.

The ''Nevada''-class numbered two ships, both built in east coast private shipyards:
*USS ''Nevada'' (BB-36), built by the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, Quincy, Massachusetts. Keel laid in November 1912; launched in July 1914; completed in March 1916.
*USS ''Oklahoma'' (BB-37), built by the New York Shipbuilding Company, Camden, New Jersey. Keel laid in October 1912; launched in March 1914; completed in May 1916.

==Design characteristics==
*Displacement: 27,500 tons (normal)
*Dimensions: 583' (length overall); 95' 3" (extreme beam)
*Powerplant: 26,500 horsepower geared steam turbines in Nevada; 24,800 horsepower triple-expansion steam reciprocating engines in Oklahoma. Both had two propellers and a 20.5 knot maximum speed
*Armament (Main Battery): Ten 14"/45 guns in two triple and two (superfiring) twin turrets
*Armament (Secondary Battery): Twenty-one 5"/51 guns in single casemate mountings (ten guns on each side of the ship, plus one in the stern); soon reduced to twelve 5"/51 guns. In the late 1920s, eight 5"/25 anti-aircraft guns were added.

====USS ''Nevada'' (BB-36)====
[[Image:G282709.jpg|right|200px|thumb|USS ''Nevada''; by 1944 extensive modifications and repairs from Pearl Harbor altered her profile considerably.]]
''Nevada'' was commissioned in March 1916 and operated in the western Atlantic and the Caribbean until mid-1918, when she went to the British Isles for World War I service. Following that conflict, ''Nevada'' was active in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific. Cruises to [[Brazil]] in 1922 and to [[Australia]] in 1925 punctuated a decade of regular fleet exercises and drills.

''Nevada'' was modernized in 1927-30, exchanging her "basket" masts for tripods. The update work also included the installation of a new superstructure, relocation of her five-inch secondary battery, new anti-aircraft guns and significant improvements to her firepower and protection. She then returned to duty with the U.S. Battle Fleet, mainly operating in the Pacific over the next eleven years.

The only battleship able to get underway during the 7 December 1941 Pearl Harbor Raid, ''Nevada'' was the object of intense attacks by Japanese aircraft. Left in a sinking condition after receiving one torpedo and several bomb hits, she had to be beached near the Navy Yard facilities, foiling Japanese attempts to sink her in the channel. Vigorous salvage work and temporary repairs enabled her to steam to the U.S. west coast in April 1942. She spent the rest of the year receiving permanent repairs and improvements, including a greatly enhanced anti-aircraft gun battery.

''Nevada'' returned to combat during the Attu landings in May 1943. Transferred to the Atlantic in mid-1943, her 14" and 5" guns were actively employed during the [[Operation Overlord|Normandy Invasion]] in June 1944 and the Southern [[France]] operation in August and September. The battleship then returned to the Pacific, where she assisted with the invasions of [[Iwo Jima]] and [[Okinawa]] in 1945. Though damaged by a suicide plane on 27 March and by an artillery shell on 5 April, ''Nevada'' remained in action off Okinawa until June 1945. She spent the remaining months of World War II in the Western Pacific, preparing for the invasion of Japan.

With the coming of peace, ''Nevada'' steamed back to Hawaii. She was too old for retention in the post-war fleet, and was assigned to serve as a target during the July 1946 atomic bomb tests at Bikini, in the Marshall Islands. That experience left her damaged and radioactive, and she was formally decommissioned in August 1946. After two years of inactivity, USS ''Nevada'' was towed to sea off the Hawaiian islands and sunk by gunfire and torpedoes.

====USS ''Oklahoma'' (BB-37)====
[[Image:G410534.jpg|right|200px|thumb|USS ''Oklahoma'' on 29 March 1943, while she was under salvage at Pearl Harbor. She had capsized and sunk after receiving massive torpedo damage during the 7 December 1941 Japanese air raid. Considered a total loss, she sank while under tow to a west coast scrap yard in 1947.]]
''Oklahoma'' was commissioned in May 1916 and generally operated in the Atlantic over the next five years. In mid-1918, ''Oklahoma'' went to European waters to help protect convoys. Late in that year and in June 1919 she escorted President [[Woodrow Wilson]] during his voyages to and from France. In 1921, the battleship moved to the Pacific, visiting the west coast of [[South America]] prior to joining the Pacific Fleet. During most of the rest of the decade, ''Oklahoma'' served with the Battle Fleet during its many exercises, drills and Fleet Problems. She participated in the Fleet's trans-Pacific cruise to Australia and New Zealand in mid-1925. In the summer of 1927, she transported Naval Academy Midshipmen from the east to the west coast during their annual training cruise.

''Oklahoma'' was modernized at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in 1927-29, emerging with a greatly altered appearance and notably improved battleworthiness. After brief service with the Scouting Fleet, she returned to the Pacific in mid-1930, and renewed her participation in the Battle Fleet's activities. In July 1936, ''Oklahoma'' was sent to Europe to help evacuate U.S. citizens and others during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. She rejoined the Battle Fleet in the Pacific later in the year.

In 1940, ''Oklahoma's'' base was shifted from the U.S. west coast to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. She was at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked on 7 December 1941. Moored outboard of USS ''Maryland'' (BB-46), she was hit by a great number of Japanese Type 91 aerial torpedoes. With her port side torn open over much of its length, ''Oklahoma'' rapidly rolled over and sank to the harbor bottom, with the loss of over 400 of her crew. Many of the men trapped in her upturned hull were cut free through the intense efforts of Sailors and civilian Navy Yard employees.

During 1943, ''Oklahoma'' was the subject of a massive salvage undertaking, involving turning her upright, patching her damages and refloating her. She was drydocked late in the year to be stripped of guns and other equipment and repaired sufficiently to make her relatively watertight. Too old and badly damaged to be worth returning to service, Oklahoma was formally decommissioned in September 1944. She was sold for scrapping in December 1946, but sank while under tow from Hawaii to California in May 1947.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb36cl.htm]}}}.
|}

[[Category:Battleships]][[Category:United States Navy]][[Category:Warships]]

Jim Bunning

2008-10-30T22:30:49Z

Samd: changed link

[[Image:Bunning.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Senator Bunning flying over Iraq with General [[David Petraeus]] in 2004.]]
'''James Paul David "Jim" Bunning''' (born October 23, 1931) is the junior U.S. [[Senator]] from the state of [[Kentucky]]. He is a member of the [[Republican Party]].

==Early Life and Education==
Bunning was born in Southgate, Kentucky to Gladys Best and Louis Aloysius Bunning. He graduated from St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati in 1949 and later received a bachelor's degree in economics from Xavier University. In 1952, Bunning married Mary Catherine Theis, with whom he has had five daughters and four sons.

==Major League Baseball career==
As a youngster in Northern Kentucky, Bunning fell in love with [[baseball]] and even then he displayed a competitive spirit and a willingness to work hard. That combination carried him on to a highly successful 17-year career as a Major League Baseball player after his graduation from Xavier University with an Economics degree. Jim Bunning's first game as a major league pitcher was on July 20, 1955. He pitched for the [[Detroit Tigers]] from 1955 to 1963, moving to the [[Philadelphia Phillies]] from 1964 through 1967, to the Pittsburgh Pirates from 1968 through the middle of the 1969 season, finished the 1969 season on the [[Los Angeles]] Dodgers, and returned to the Phillies in 1970, retiring in 1971. He wore uniform number 15 on the 1955 Tigers, switched to 14 in 1956, which was the number he wore for the Tigers, Phillies, and Pirates until he was traded to the Dodgers in 1969. For the Dodgers, he wore number 17, but returned to number 14 when he returned to the Phillies, who retired the number upon his election to the Hall of Fame. Bunning pitched his first no-hitter on July 20, 1958, for the Detroit Tigers against the [[Boston Red Sox]]. His second, for the Philadelphia Phillies, was a perfect game, which came against the [[New York Mets]] on June 21, 1964, Father's Day. Bunning's perfect game was the first in the National League in 84 years. He is one of only five players to throw a no-hitter in both leagues. He played in the All-Star Games in 1957, 1959, every year from 1961 through 1964, and in 1966. In 1996 he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame via the Veterans Committee. Bunning has received the most votes cast by the BBWAA during the course of all players' Hall of Fame eligibility periods, collecting well over 3,000 votes.

==Political career==
In 1979, Bunning was elected to the Kentucky State Senate and became its Republican Leader. In 1986, he was elected to the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] for the 4th District of Kentucky where he served for 12 years. He unsuccessfully ran for governor in 1983. Bunning was elected to the United States Senate in 1998. In 2004 he was reeleced by just over one percentage point, despite Republican [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] carrying Kentucky by over 20 points. Because of his narrow victory, Bunning is likely to become a top target of the [[Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]] and the far-left in his 2010 reelection campaign. Liberal critics have questioned Senator Bunning's mental state. [[Time Magazine]] has said that he has "bizarre behavior" when talking with his fellow Senators.

==Political views==
Bunning was ranked by [[National Journal]] as the second-most conservative United States Senator in their March 2007 conservative/liberal rankings. He is a supporter of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] and terrorist surveillance. Saying that "civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead." He is also a strong critic of [[Illegal Immigration]]. "If you believe that over ten- to twelve-million people can get secure I.D. cards in their hands and have the government get them to them in time so we can check whether they're legal or illegal when they come into this country, you're smoking something that is illegal," Bunning said at a press conference in June 2007.

==External Links==
*[http://bunning.senate.gov/public/ Official Website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bunning, Jim}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]

Anti-virus software

2008-10-30T22:29:55Z

Samd: spelling corrections; general cleanup

'''Anti-virus software''' protects a [[computer]] from [[virus]]es and malicious software (malware) that can destroy [[data]], slow a computer's performance, cause a crash, or even allow [[spammer]]s to send [[email]] through your account, such as spam, or other viruses to others on your mailing list by searching a computer's hard disk for programs and comparing it against a known set of malicious software and deleting or quarantining suspicious items and software. <ref>[http://onguardonline.gov/glossary.html OnGuard Online: Glossary] [[OnGuardOnline|OnGuardOnline.gov]]</ref>.

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

[[Category:Software]]

Ringo Starr

2008-10-30T22:26:59Z

Samd: sp

'''Ringo Starr''', born Richard Starkey in 1940, was the drummer for [[The Beatles]]. Unlike the other members, Starr seldom wrote songs for the band, writing many more for his solo career (the least successful one of the former Beatles). Following The Beatles Starr took up acting, notably in the series "[[Thomas the Tank Engine]]". He was the oldest of the Beatles.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Starr, Ringo}}
[[Category:Musicians]]
[[Category:Beatles]]

Latin Vulgate

2008-10-30T22:25:43Z

Samd: grammar

Translated by [[St. Jerome]], primarily from [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek language|Greek]], '''The Vulgate''' is the version of the [[Latin]] Bible. The root word for vulgate gives us the word vulgar; in the day of St Jerome this word didn't have the negative connotations associated with it as it does today, it simply meant "common". The Vulgate was used by the [[Roman Catholic Church]] for more than 1000 years. Jerome (the leading biblical scholar of his day) was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382AD, to produce a Latin translation of the Bible from the several translations then in use. This work took two years and in 384AD the revised Latin translation of the [[Gospels]] was delivered to the [[Pope]].

Using the [[Septuagint]] Greek version of the [[Old Testament]], Jerome produced new Latin translations of the [[Psalms]], the [[Job|Book of Job]], and some other books.

The first editions of the Vulgate contain the present 27 books of the [[New Testament]]. The list of the 27 is included in Jerome's Epistle to Paulinus (53.9), and is printed as a prologue in older editions of the Vulgate Bible.<ref>http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml</ref>

Later, he, (St Jerome), decided the Septuagint was unsatisfactory and began translating the entire [[Old Testament]] from the original Hebrew, completing it ~405. The remainder of the New Testament was from older Latin versions, revised by Jerome.

<references/>
[[Category:Bible Versions]]

Middle Tennessee State University

2008-10-30T22:23:43Z

Samd: grammar

{{University
|name=Middle Tennessee State University
|image=Mt-color.gif
|text=rgb(21,53,123)
|background=
|type=Public
|city=Murfreesboro, Tennessee
|sports=baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, tennis, track, softball, volleyball<ref>http://www.goblueraiders.com/</ref>
|colors=blue, white
|mascot=Lightning (Blue Raiders)
|website=http://www.mtsu.edu/index.shtml
}}
'''Middle Tennessee State University''' is a four-year public university located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and is a member of Tennessee's State Board of Regents. MTSU offers in many fields, awarding Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral degrees, and Post-Master's, and Postbachelor's certificates.

==History==
Founded in 1911, MTSU was the result of a 1909 decision by the Tennessee legislature awarding a state-funded college to each of Tennessee's distinct regions, in addition to a fourth in Nashville for African-American students:
*Eastern Tennessee Normal School, Johnson City ([[Eastern Tennessee State University]]);
*West Tennessee State Normal School, Memphis ([[University of Memphis]]);
*Middle Tennessee Normal School;
*Agricultural and Industrial State Normal School, Nashville ([[Tennessee State University]])
Originally known for having taught the fields of education and nursing, Middle Tennessee Normal School expanded its curriculum over the years; by 1943 it had become a state college. Additional subjects plus an expansion of the campus gained it university status by 1965. Currently, MTSU is second to the [[University of Tennessee]] in size of student population; however it is the largest university in the state in the actual number of undergraduate students.

==Majors==
*Agribusiness; Animal Sciences; Plant Sciences
*Biology/Biological Sciences
*Biological and Physical Sciences; Interdisciplinary Studies; Multi-/Interdisciplinary Studies Related
*Health and Physical Education; Parks, Recreation and Leisure Facilities Management
*Philosophy
*Accounting; Business Administration and Management; Business/Managerial Economics; Finance; Management Information Systems; Marketing/Marketing Management; Office Management; Sales, Distribution and Marketing
*Mass Communication/Media; Public Relations/Image Management
*Computer Science
*Art Teacher Education; Business Teacher Education; Health Teacher Education; Kindergarten/Preschool Education; Sales and Marketing/Marketing and Distribution Teacher Education; Special Education; Technology/Industrial Arts Teacher Education
*Engineering Technology; Engineering/Industrial Management; Environmental Engineering Technology; Industrial Technology
*English
*Aeronautics/Aviation/Aerospace Science and Technology
*Art; Dramatic/Theater Arts; Interior Design; Music; Music Management and Merchandising
*Apparel and Textiles; Family Resource Management; Foods, Nutrition, and Wellness
*Foreign Languages and Literature
*Athletic Training; Nursing (Registered Nurse Training)
*History
*Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies
*Mathematics
*Chemistry; Geology/Earth Science; Physics
*Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Psychology
*Social Work
*Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement Administration; Criminal Justice/Police Science
*Anthropology; Economics; International Relations and Affairs; Political Science and Government; Sociology

==Athletics==
MTSU is a member of the [[Sun Belt Conference]], competing on [[NCAA]] division level 1. Football is played at divisional level 1-A, and is sometimes played in a nationally-televised spotlight. The school's athletic mascot is a blue, winged horse named "Lightning", adopted in 1998.

==Links==
*[http://www.mtsu.edu/index.shtml Official site]
*[http://www.goblueraiders.com/ Official site of MTSU's Blue Raiders athletics]
*[http://www.petersons.com/ugchannel/code/InstVC.asp?inunid=7466&sponsor=1 Peterson's College Guide; overview of MTSU]
*[http://www.sunbeltsports.org/ Sun Belt Conference, official site]
{{Nb_US_universities‎}}

Paris

2008-10-30T22:22:41Z

Samd: sentence flow

''For Paris from the [[Trojan War]] please click [[Paris (mythology)|here]]''
[[Image:Tour - Eiffel.jpg|thumb|left|140px|Eiffel Tower]]

'''Paris''' is the capital and largest city of [[France]]. It is situated on the [[River Seine]]. The population of the Greater Paris urban area is approximately 10 million, or almost one-sixth of the total population of France, with over 2.1 million in the city of Paris itself.

==History==
[[Image:Notre Dame.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Notre Dame cathedral]]
As with many other important cities in Europe, the Romans set up a military outpost (52 B.C.) on the location that would one day become Paris. In the 6th century A.D., King [[Clovis I]] established Paris as his capital. This was confirmed when [[Huge Capet]] became king of France in 987 A.D. Growth increased under the reign of [[Philip II]] (1180-1223) and Paris remained the capital when [[Louis XIV]] set up his court in [[Versailles]] in 1682. The [[Germans]] occupied Paris in [[World War II]]. It was liberated near the end of the war, but was largely undamaged.<ref>The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989</ref>

Famous Paris landmarks include:
*[[Eiffel Tower]]
*[[Arc de Triomphe]]
*[[Louvre]]
*[[Notre Dame cathedral]], which was the setting for [[Victor Hugo]]'s novel, ''[[The Hunchback of Notredame]]''.
*Montmartre

==Urban Unrest==
[[Image:Sacre Coeur.jpg|thumb|right|240px|Sacre Coeur]]
Some of the suburbs around Paris (''les banlieues''), especially to the northeast, are known for large apartment blocks, housing many of the latest Muslim immigrants to France. These have been rocked by violence as youths rioted against the alleged intolerance of the police forces.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:French Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Global warming

2008-10-30T22:19:52Z

Samd: minor fixes

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

'''Global warming''' is an increase in average air temperature in the [[Earth]]'s atmosphere.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

In the modern period of global warming, a slight increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when organized records began to be kept. Since this happens to correlate with increases in [[carbon dioxide]], many have speculated about their possible relationship. Despite this, there is no completely proven model explaining the rise in global temperatures.

==Controversy==
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.{{Fact}}

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, january 10, 2008</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==

Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> How much of this is due to contamination of the temperature record from the [[urban heat island]] effect is hard to assess. Efforts are currently underway to detect and remove this bias. Spurious warming trends that might be considered as global warming can occur almost anywhere. <ref name="col">http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>
Nonetheless, controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. <ref name="col" />

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

==False Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory{{fact}} then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.


By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately {{temperature|6|11}} and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other plants even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

==Politics of Global Warming==

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

After the successful completion of a lawsuit against his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />\

*Al Gore is therefore an example of how in such an important debate [[deceitful|deceit]] tactics have been used by liberals to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80%) or '''$45 Trillion dollars'''". <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html Leguea of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.


==References==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]

Second Sino-Japanese War

2008-10-30T22:13:22Z

Samd: sp

The '''Second Sino-Japanese War''' (July 7, 1937 - September 9, 1945) was a major war fought between the [[Republic of China]] and Imperial [[Japan]].

==Japanese Invasion==
In 1932, Japan had invaded [[Manchuria]] and established the puppet state of [[Manchukuo]]. In 1937, Japanese military forces attacked the Marco Polo bridge in near [[Beijing]].
On July 7, 1937 Japanese troops stationed in North China, under terms of the [[Boxer Protocol of 1900]], clashed with elements of the [[Kuomintang]] army near the Marco Polo Bridge, ten miles west of Beijing. Three days after the battle, [[Chiang Kai-Shek]] declared [[Total War]] on Japanese forces in China. An all-out Japanese invasion of 400,000 soldiers followed. By the end of the month, Beijing was occupied and the following month [[Shanghai]] (See [[Battle of Shanghai]]), [[Nanjing]], and [[Shanxi]] were attacked. Japanese military forces eventually gained control of all three cities, though were met with fierce Chinese resistance.

In the U.S., the [[The Neutrality Act]] required the President to implement its provisions when a state of war existed, but [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] did not invoke the act. FDR permitted American munitions to be shipped via British ships destined for Hong Kong. ''[[Time magazine]]'' speculated, "though in the long run Japan might need U. S. supplies more than China, the immediate effect of an embargo would be to the advantage of Japan, whose ships could still presumably conduct a "cash and carry" trade with the U. S."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930929-1,00.html Manslaughter in Shanghai], ''Time'' magazine, Aug. 30, 1937.</ref>

Most of the Japanese attacks were launched against Nationalist-held territory, not Communist. Thus Chiang's policy of giving up territory and not launching counter-attacks was interpreted
as lack of will to fight Japan. <ref>Anne W. Carroll, [http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/FR89102.TXT ''Who Lost China''], 1996. Retrieved from www.ewtn com/library/ August 16, 2007.</ref> considering the fact that the communists held zero territory at the time, this was not a surprise.

At the outbreak of the war, the Republic of China had little to no mechanized forces, inferior equipment, and poorly trained soldiers. Due to this, Japanese forces quickly swept through China and captured most of the developed portions of the country.

==Resistance Fighting==
Though Japan had no problem conquering most of China, [[Guerrilla warfare|guerrilla]] fighting continued throughout the conquered areas.

==International Involvement==
*Prior to 1939, China and [[Nazi Germany]] had seen close economic and military ties. After the outbreak of war in Europe, Germany was generally reluctant to help Chinese forces.
*The [[Soviet Union]] provided the largest amount of foreign aid to China during the war, some $250 million worth of supplies. {{fact}}
*The [[United States]] aided in supplying materiel to the Kuomintanguntil the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Soon after going to war with Japan (see [[Pacific front of World War II]]), the US developed a volunteer fighter wing known as the [[Flying Tigers]], which saw great success over Chinese skies (300 kills compared to 12 losses).

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm The Flying Tigers]
*[http://www.kangzhan.org/history?PHPSESSID=cab2c37ca3af8124262d42de34943761 KangZahn Archives]

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Chinese History]]
[[Category:Japanese History]]

William Hogarth

2008-10-30T22:12:50Z

Samd: minor

[[Image:William Hogarth.jpg|right|100px]]
'''William Hogarth''' (London, 10 November, 1697 – London, 25 October, 1764) English painter and engraver. He was one of the greatest innovators in [[English]] art. Hogarth was a professional rebel. He found English art sycophantic, and determined to make it independent. Instead of working for a few rich patrons, Hogarth evolved the idea of making his living out of popular engravings of his pictures. He believed that the lack of a native [[Painting Schools|school of painting]] was largely due to the fashions imposed on a credulous public by connoisseurs and critics and he waged continual war on taste and the Old Masters. ''He is best remembered for the satirical engravings that gave the name 'Hogarthian' to low-life scenes of the period.'' <ref>[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58655295 "Hogarth, Constable and Turner"]</ref> <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/william-hogarth Answers.com]</ref>

<blockquote>
William Hogarth is unquestionably one of the greatest English artists and a man of remarkably individual character and thought. He is the great innovator in English art. On one hand, he was the first to paint themes from [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]], [[John Milton| Milton]] and the theater, and the founder of a wholly original genre of moral history, which was long known as Hogarthian. On the other, he investigated the [[Aesthetics|aesthetic]] principles of his art, which resulted in his book “The Analysis of Beauty”(1753). [http://www.abcgallery.com/H/hogarth/hogarthbio.html]
</blockquote>

 
[[Image:Hogarth Wanstead Assembly at Wanstead House.jpg]]

'''Wanstead Assembly at Wanstead House.'''

== See also ==
[[Image:Hogarth Falstaff Examining His Recruits.JPG|thumb|Falstaff Examining His Recruits]]
*[[English Painting]]
*[[English Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[William Turner]]
{{Clear}}

== External links ==
[[Image:Hogarth Sigismonda.JPG|thumb|Sigismonda]]
*[http://www.abcgallery.com/H/hogarth/hogarth.html Hogarth at Olga's Gallery]
*[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58655295 "Hogarth, Constable and Turner"] - appeared in "Masterpieces of English Painting" by Hans Huth
*[http://www.nmm.ac.uk/mag/pages/mnuInDepth/Biography.cfm?biog=195 William Hogarth]
{{Clear}}

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hogarth, William}}

[[Category:Painters]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T04:02:45Z

Samd: /* Chromosome example */ sign

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

==Refutations==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Thinker...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Consciousness ==

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

== Bat counterexample ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

== Some Comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Consciousness (2) ==

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

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

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

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

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

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

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

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

== Beauty ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

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

==Chromosome example==

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

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

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

:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T04:02:31Z

Samd: /* Chromosome example */ comment

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T03:24:29Z

Samd: /* Beauty */ comment

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

==Refutations==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Thinker...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Consciousness ==

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

== Bat counterexample ==

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

== Some Comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Consciousness (2) ==

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

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

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

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

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

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

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

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

== Beauty ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Chromosome example==

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

User:Samd/conserv.js

2008-10-28T02:45:20Z

Samd: fix broken code

addOnloadHook(function () {
if ( wgCanonicalNamespace == "Special" )
return; // don't display link for special pages

url = wgServer + "/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=" + encodeURIComponent(wgPageName);

addPortletLink("p-tb", url, "Page logs", "pt-logs");
});

function liveClock()
{

liveClock.node = addPortletLink( 'p-personal', wgServer + wgScriptPath + '/index.php?title=' + encodeURIComponent(wgPageName) + '&action=purge', '', 'utcdate' );
liveClock.node.style.fontSize = 'larger';
liveClock.node.style.fontWeight = 'bolder';

showTime();
}
addOnloadHook(liveClock)

function showTime()
{

var dateNode = liveClock.node;
if( !dateNode ) {
return;
}
var now = new Date();
var hh = now.getHours();
var mm = now.getMinutes();
var ss = now.getSeconds();
var time = ( hh < 10 ? '0' + hh : hh ) + ':' + ( mm < 10 ? '0' + mm : mm ) + ':' + ( ss < 10 ? '0' + ss : ss );
dateNode.firstChild.replaceChild( document.createTextNode( time ), dateNode.firstChild.firstChild );

window.setTimeout(showTime, 1000);
}

New England Patriots

2008-10-28T02:39:48Z

Samd: minor fixes

[[Image:Ptc.jpg|thumb|300px|The New England players at the 2005 [[Patriots Training Camp]].]]
The '''New England Patriots''' are a [[National Football League]] franchise team. The Patriots, also known as the "Pats", are based in [[Foxboro (Massachusetts)|Foxboro]], [[Massachusetts]]. Since they are located in the eastern region of the United States the Patriots belong to the Eastern Division of [[American Football Conference]] (AFC). Originally known as the Boston Patriots, in 1971 the franchise changed its name to the New England Patriots to better reflect its representation of the entire [[New England]] region.

The Patriots have gone to five [[Super Bowl]]s and have won three. Their first Super Bowl trip was in 1985 against the [[Chicago Bears]], which they lost 42 - 10. In 1995 the Patriots made their second Super Bowl trip but fell short against the [[Green Bay Packers]] in a 35 - 21 loss. The Patriots' 2001 season ended in the teams first [[Super Bowl]] triumph when they defeated the heavily favored [[St. Louis Rams]] in a dramatic 21-17 victory. In 2003 and 2004, the Patriots once again were NFL Champions with Super Bowl victories over the [[Carolina Panthers]] and [[Philadelphia Eagles]].

In 2008 the Patriots had the chance to become the first team to go 19-0 and the second team to go undefeated in a regular and post season. However, their run came to an end at 18-0 when they lost 17-14 to the [[New York Giants]] in [[Super Bowl XLII]].

== Team ==
{{NewEnglandPatriots}}

==Team History==
[[Image:Threetimesuperbowlwinners.gif|thumb|210px|The Patriots have won three [[Super Bowl]]s in the last six years.]]
In the Patriots history as a team they have experienced both sides of being an [[National Football League]] team - the losing - and the winning. In their early history as a team, the Patriots struggled just to get a winning record. Between the years 1960 and 1984 the team only made the playoffs four times, and only won one playoff game. The winds of fortunes seemed to be turning for the Patriots in 1985 though when for the first time in the teams history the Patriots won a AFC Championship Game and played in [[Super Bowl XX]] vs the [[Chicago Bears]]. The Patriots lost the game though and for the next eight years, without a solid, reliable quarterback, the team regressed into their pre-1985 form.

In 1993, the Patriots drafted with the first pick of the [[1993 NFL Draft]], [[University of Washington]] star quarterback, [[Drew Bledsoe]]. With Bledsoe now leading the team, the Patriots improved significantly and in 1996 the Patriots returned to the Super Bowl ([[Super Bowl XXXI]] vs the [[Green Bay Packers]]). Once again the Patriots lost but they didn't fall apart as a team and they continued to be a playoff contender throughout the late 1990's.

In 2000, the history of the Patriots quietly changed forever when [[Bill Belichick]] was appointed as the head coach and the Patriots drafted [[University of Michigan]] quarterback [[Tom Brady]] in the 6th round of the NFL Draft. The following year, 2001, Tom Brady became the Patriots starting quarterback and led the Patriots to their first [[Super Bowl]] victory. Since 2001, the Patriots have been in the playoffs all but one year (2002, 9-7 record) and have won two more Super Bowls. The 2004-2005 Patriots teams also set a NFL record for most consecutive game won with 26 in a row.

In 2007, the Patriots became only the second team in NFL history to win all sixteen of their regular-season games (the first being the 1972 [[Miami Dolphins]]).

==Spying Incident==
In the Patriots 2007 regular season opener vs the [[New York Jets]], a Patriots employee, video assistant Matt Estrella, was caught video taping [[New York Jets]] defensive signals during the first quarter of the game.<ref>[http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3012989 ESPN, Chris Mortensen, September 11, 2007, "Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets"]</ref> NFL security officials at the game confiscated Estrella's video camera and the video tape and sent it to the leagues headquarters to determine whether the Patriots were violating the NFL's videotaping policy.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/rules_in_focus.html Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 11, 2007, "Rules in focus"]</ref> Days after the incident, Patriots head coach [[Bill Belichick]] apologized for the episode stating "I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/13/a_sorry_state/ Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 13, 2007, "A Sorry State, Belichick apologizes as probe continues"]</ref>

After a review of the video tape by the NFL's competition committee and commissioner [[Roger Goodell]], Bill Belichick was fined 500,000 dollars and the Patriots organization 250,000 dollars. The leagues verdict also stated the the Patriots would forfeit their 2008 NFL Draft first round pick if they made the playoffs in 2007, and if they failed to make the playoffs, their 2008 second and third round choices.<ref>[http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80251b7e&template=without-video&confirm=true NFL.com, September 13, 2007, "NFL fines Belichick, strips Patriots of draft pick"]</ref>

[[Image:Bill Belichick.JPG|210px|thumb|Patriots head coach, [[Bill Belichick]] was fined $500,000 for his role in the sideline spying incident.]]
NFL commissioner [[Roger Goodell]] wrote in his ruling, "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field. I specifically considered whether to impose a suspension on Coach Belichick. I have determined not to do so, largely because I believe that the discipline I
am imposing of a maximum fine and forfeiture of a first-round draft choice, or multiple draft choices, is in fact more significant and long-lasting, and therefore more effective, than a suspension."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/final_ruling.html Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 13, 2007, "Final Ruling"]</ref>

Belichick responded to the leagues verdict in a written statement that he accepted full responsibility for the incident and that he had been incorrect in his interpretation of the NFL's rules regarding sideline video taping.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/belichick_state_2.html Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 13, 2007, "Belichick statement"]</ref>

===Past Alleged Patriots Spying Incidents===
After the incident became public, some NFL players and coaches stated that they believed that the Patriots may have used the same type of taping methods vs their teams. The only confirmed time that it actually happened however was on November 19, 2006, in a game between the New England Patriots and [[Green Bay Packers]]. The Packers claimed that during the game they had caught the same Patriots video assistant as in the Jets game, Matt Estrella, video taping the Packers coaches making defensive signals from the Patriots sideline<ref>[http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3012989 ESPN, Chris Mortensen, September 10, 2007, "Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets"]</ref>. Packers security staff removed Estrella and his camera from the sideline but did not did not file a complaint over the taping because according to a Green Bay official, "everyone does it".<ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1031230 Boston Herald, John Tomase, September 13, 2007, "Foes questioning Pats’ past"]</ref>

[[Pittsburgh Steelers]] wide receiver, [[Hines Ward]], stated that he believed that the Patriots may have used the NFL violating taping methods against the Steelers in the 2002 and 2004 AFC Championship games. Ward said regarding the 2002 Championship game, "They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."<ref>[http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8024a850&template=with-video&confirm=true Associated Press, September 12, 2007, "Steelers' Ward suspected Patriots spying"]</ref>

[[New York Giants]] defensive end, [[Michael Strahan]] said that the incident had tainted the Patriots three [[Super Bowl]] victory's<ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1031230 Boston Herald, John Tomase, September 13, 2007, "Foes questioning Pats’ past"]</ref> while [[Indianapolis Colts]] head coach, [[Tony Dungy]] compared the Patriots spying to [[Barry Bonds]] alleged use of steroids.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/14/dungy_compares_belichick_spy_scandal_to_bonds_steroid_accusations/ Boston Globe, Cliff Brunt, Associated Press Sports Writer, September 14, 2007, "Dungy compares Belichick spy scandal to Bonds steroid accusations"]</ref>

== New England Patriots seasons record==
[[Image:Pats2006RunningBacks.jpg|thumb|300px|The Patriots 2006 running backs unit.]]
[[Image:Patsteam1.gif|thumb|300px|Patriots offense coordinator [[Josh McDainels]] is one of the youngest coaches in the NFL.]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Wins
! Loss's
! Ties
! Playoffs
! Notes
|-
| 1960
| 5
| 9
|
|
| The [[Boston Patriots]] become one of eight teams to join the [[American Football League]] (AFL).
|-
| 1961
| 9
| 4
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1962
| 9
| 4
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1963
| 7
| 6
| 1
| 1-1
| Patriots lost in the AFL Championship game to the [[San Diego Chargers]] 51-10.
|-
| 1964
| 10
| 3
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1965
| 4
| 8
| 2
|
|
|-
| 1966
| 8
| 4
| 2
|
| Patriots running back [[Jim Nance]] rushes for 1,458 yards.
|-
| 1967
| 3
| 10
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1968
| 4
| 10
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1969
| 4
| 10
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1970
| 2
| 12
| 0
|
| Team moves from playing at [[Fenway Park]] to Boston College's Alumni Stadium.
|-
| 1971
| 6
| 8
| 0
|
|Team moves to [[Foxboro (Massachusetts)|Foxboro]] and changes its name from [[Boston Patriots]] to the New England Patriots.
|-
| 1972
| 3
| 11
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1973
| 5
| 9
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1974
| 7
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1975
| 3
| 11
| 0
|
| [[Steve Grogan]] becomes the starting quarterback for the Patriots.
|-
| 1976
| 11
| 3
| 0
|
|Patriots cornerback [[Mike Haynes]] wins the [[Defensive Rookie of the Year]] award.
|-
| 1977
| 9
| 5
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1978
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots wide receiver [[Darryl Stingley]] paralyzed in a preseason game vs the [[Oakland Raiders]].
|-
| 1979
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1980
| 10
| 6
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1981
| 2
| 14
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1982
| 5
| 4
| 0
|
| Season was cut short by players strike
|-
| 1983
| 8
| 8
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1984
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
| [[Raymond Berry]] named as the Patriots coach.
|-
| 1985
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 3-1
| Lost in [[Super Bowl XX]] vs the [[Chicago Bears]].
|-
| 1986
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots Hall of Fame guard [[John Hannah]] retires.
|-
| 1987
| 8
| 7
| 0
|
| [[Victor Kiam]] buys the team from original owner [[Billy Sullivan]].
|-
| 1988
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1989
| 5
| 11
| 0
|
|Head coach [[Raymond Berry]] fired.
|-
| 1990
| 1
| 15
| 0
|
| Worst season in Patriots history.
|-
| 1991
| 6
| 10
| 0
|
|60 year old [[Dick MacPherson]] becomes head coach.
|-
| 1992
| 2
| 14
| 0
|
|Businessman [[James Orthwein]] become the sole owner of the Patriots.
|-
| 1993
| 5
| 11
| 0
|
| Quarterback [[Drew Bledsoe]] is drafted by the Patriots
|-
| 1994
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 0-1
| [[Robert Kraft]] buys the Patriots
|-
| 1995
| 6
| 10
| 0
|
| Patriots third round pick [[Curtis Martin]] wins [[Offensive Rookie of the Year]].
|-
| 1996
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 2-1
| Lost [[Super Bowl XXXI]] vs the [[Green Bay Packers]]
|-
| 1997
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 1-1
| Patriots lose 7-6 in the Division Round of the playoffs vs the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|-
| 1998
| 9
| 7
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots draft [[University of Georgia]] running back [[Robert Edwards]].
|-
| 1999
| 8
| 8
| 0
|
| [[Pete Carroll]]'s last year as Patriots head coach
|-
| 2000
| 5
| 11
|
|
| First season with [[Bill Belichick]] as head coach
|-
| 2001
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 3-0
| Defeated the [[St. Louis Rams]] in [[Super Bowl XXXVI]]
|-
| 2002
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
| Could have made the playoffs with a [[New York Jets]] loss, First season in [[Gillette Stadium]]
|-
| 2003
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 3-0
| Won [[Super Bowl XXXVIII]] vs the [[Carolina Panthers]]
|-
| 2004
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 3-0
| Defeated [[Philadelphia Eagles]] in [[Super Bowl XXXIX]]
|-
| 2005
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 1-1
| Backup quarterback [[Doug Flutie]] dropped kicks an
extra point in the last game season of the regular season
|-
| 2006
| 12
| 4
| 0
| 2-1
| First 12-4 record in Patriots history
|-
|}
==References==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

== External Links ==

* [http://www.patriots.com/homepage/ Patriots Official Website]

'''''Patriots News Websites'''''

* [http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/ Boston Globe]

* [http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots.bg Boston Herald]

* [http://www.projo.com/patriots/?tn Providence Journal]

* [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/patriots/index.html Sports Illustrated]

* [http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team?statsId=17 Fox Sports]

* [http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/patriots/index.html Sporting News]

== Source Material ==

* [http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/nengalnd/patriots.html SportsEncyclopedia.com - Patriots History]

* [http://www.patriots.com/history/ Patriots.com - History Page]

* [http://www.searchboston.com/patriots.html SearchBoston.com - Patriots History Page]

* [http://nflhistory.net/patriots/ NFLHistory.net - Patriots Histoy]

* [http://www.nfl-history.com/patriots.php NFL-History.com - Patriots History]

* [http://football.about.com/cs/2003nflplayoffs/a/playoffhistnewe.htm AboutFootball.com - Patriots Playoff Record]

[[Category:New England Patriots]]

[[category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Massachusetts]]

New York Giants

2008-10-28T02:36:19Z

Samd: fixed clumsy phrasing

[[Image:Giants.jpg|right]]
The ''' New York Giants ''' are a [[National Football League]] franchise team based in [[New York]], NY. They are part of the [[NFL]], National Football Conference (NFC) and play in the NFC East Division.

On February 3, 2008, the Giants won [[Super Bowl XLII]], defeating the heavily favored [[New England Patriots]].

==See also==
*[[Vince Lombardi]]
*[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
*[[Washington Redskins]]
*[[National Football Conference]]

== External links ==
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/giants/index.html Team site]
*[http://www.giants.com/ New York Giants]

[[Category:National Football League]]
[[Category:New York]]

Eli Manning

2008-10-28T02:34:52Z

Samd: removed italics

[[Image:Eli Manning.jpg|left]]
'''Eli Manning''' (b. New Orleans, LA, 1981 - ) is the quarterback of the [[New York Giants]].

'Eli Manning is nearly five years younger than [[Peyton Manning|Peyton]], who guided the [[Indianapolis Colts]] to a victory over the [[Chicago Bears]] in [[Super Bowl XLI]] in [[Miami]]. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/sports/football/29manning.html?_r=1&oref=slogin] In the following [[Super Bowl XLII|Super Bowl]] (XLII), Eli Manning and the Giants defeated the heavily favored [[New England Patriots]].

== External links ==

*[http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6760;_ylt=AqskRaUwNkXy6p0.jvodUdQisLYF Eli Manning]

[[Category:National Football League]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T02:13:32Z

Samd: spelling correction

The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved.

The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.

* Many cases of beauty, such as the [[peacock|peacock's]] tail, which lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.<ref>The peacock's tail used to be considered an example of [[sexual selection]], but a study has shown that this is not the case.—Catchpoole, David, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/ Peacock tail tale failure] 6th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
* the [[whale]] and other relatives, which have no plausible ancestors in the fossil record<ref>[http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department]</ref> ([[Charles Darwin]] suggested black bears)
* the mammalian [[eye]], which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution<ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm Evolution of the eye? Not a chance!]</ref>
* bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html]</ref>
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the migrations of butterflies and birds, and the mechanisms which allow them to navigate.<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
* The neck of the [[giraffe]].<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<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>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 4 chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 5. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome simultaneously.
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore those bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
* No clear transition form unicellular to multicellular organisms - a single cell in a multicellular organism has no ability to survive on it own as it has only a single function, but if a unicellular organism loses one function it will die.{{fact}}
* The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</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.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Evolution]]

Homo habilis

2008-10-28T02:04:30Z

Samd: bypass redirect

Evolutionists believe this was an early member of the [[homo]] [[genus]] that lived from about 2.5 million years ago to about 1.8 million years ago. According to them, it was followed by [[Homo ergaster]]. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth creationists]] believe that these were humans or apes drowned in the [[Great Flood]] about 5,500 years ago.

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Homo habilis

2008-10-28T02:04:02Z

Samd: clarified

Evolutionists believe this was an early member of the [[homo]] [[genus]] that lived from about 2.5 million years ago to about 1.8 million years ago. According to them, it was followed by [[Homo ergaster]]. [[Young Earth creationists]] believe that these were humans or apes drowned in the [[Great Flood]] about 5,500 years ago.

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Comet

2008-10-28T01:57:47Z

Samd: /* See Also */ bypass redirects

[[Image:Comet wild 2.jpg|right|thumb|Photograph of the comet code named ''Wild 2''|250px]]{{etymology|The word "comet" first appears in [[Aristotle]]'s ''Meteorology,'' and derives from the Greek ''komē,'' hair.<ref>[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html Meteorology, part 1], translation by E. W. Webster. See part 7: "The kind of comet varies according to the shape which the exhalation happens to take. If it is diffused equally on every side the star is said to be fringed, if it stretches out in one direction it is called bearded. We have seen that when a fiery principle of this kind moves we seem to have a shooting-star: similarly when it stands still we seem to have a star standing still." Aristotle believed comets could be formed ''from'' stars: "But when the exhalation is constituted by one of the fixed stars or the planets, owing to their motion, one of them becomes a comet. The fringe is not close to the stars themselves."</ref>}}A '''comet''' is a small [[solar system]] body, of irregular shape, composed of [[water]] ice, frozen [[gas]] and non-volatile [[dust]]. They are in highly eccentric [[orbit]]s around the [[sun]], with apo[[apsis|apsides]] varying from 4 AU to 30 AU (in the [[Kuiper belt]]) and beyond. The relatively short life spans of comets have provoked a still-unsettled debate concerning their origins. This debate is one of the most important of all debates between [[creationism|creationists]] and non-creationists.<ref name=Yeomans>Yeomans, Donald K. "[http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar125580 Comet]." ''World Book Online Reference Center.'' 2005. World Book, Inc. Accessed July 20, 2008</ref><ref name=Hamilton>Hamilton, Calvin J. "[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/comet.htm Comet Introduction]." ''Views of the Solar System'', 1997-2005. Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref><ref name=Arnett>Arnett, William. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/comets.html Comets]." ''The <s>Nine</s>8 Planets'', May 1, 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref><ref name=space>Authors unnamed. "[http://www.space.com/comets/ Comets]." <http://www.space.com/>, n.d. Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref><ref name=Jewitt>Jewitt, David C. "[http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/comet.html Comet page]." December 9, 1997. Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref><ref name=Brown>Brown, Walter. "[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets.html The Origin of Comets]." ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', online book, 1995-2008. Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref>

== History of Comet Observation and Exploration ==
[[Image:Halley Bayeux.jpg|left|150px]]Comets as a class were known to the ancients, and some of the most prominent and regularly appearing comets observed today appear in ancient records. For example, [[China|Chinese]] records mention a recurrent comet beginning in 240 BC. That comet is most likely Comet Halley, whose discoverer, [[Edmond Halley]], was the first to predict a comet's reappearance in advance. Comet Halley also appeared on April 24, 1066, to astounded onlookers in [[England]] prior to the conquest of England by the Normans, as depicted in the Tapestry of Bayeux.<ref name=Bayeux>Crack, Glen Ray. "[http://www.hastings1066.com/bayhi3a.shtml Bayeux Tapestry Highlights Part 3, Image 1]." <http://www.hastings1066.com/>, January 10, 1998. Retrieved July 20, 2008.</ref>

In fact, comets have been observed for far longer in history. The ancient [[Greece|Greeks]] called them "evil stars," which in Greek is ''dys'' evil and ''astron'' a star. This is the origin of the modern word ''disaster''. The association of comets with untoward events or prophecies continued as recently as the twentieth century, when Comet Halley made an unusually close rendezvous with [[earth]].<ref name=Newburn>Newburn, Ray. "[http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news90.html NASA's Blazing the Trail to Understand Comets]." [[JPL]], [[NASA]], November 21, 2003. Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref>

Today, amateur astronomers often discover comets. Recent computerized sky surveys now find most comets as they approach the [[sun]].<ref name=Arnett/>

== Parts of a comet ==
[[Image:Halley1910a.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Halley's Comet on its 1910 appearance. This Yerkes Observatory photograph is highly enlarged; the comet would not have appeared this large or bright to the naked eye.]]The '''nucleus''' or ''head'' of a comet is a lightweight ball of rock, dust, and ice that resembles a dirty snowball. As a comet approaches the sun at 5 AU or closer, the '''coma''' forms. This is the base of the two ''tails'' of the comet. The ice begins to melt and vaporize, and the solar wind blows the liberated particles away from the sun. The dust forms one tail, and [[ion]]s form another.<ref name=Yeomans/>

Comet nuclei are currently thought to measure 16 kilometers across or less.<ref name=Yeomans/> A comet nucleus shines with reflected light only. A comet's coma often absorbs ultraviolet radiation and becomes fluorescent. In so doing it can shine more brightly than does the nucleus.<ref name=Hamilton/> A comet's tails can extend for 160 million kilometers<ref name=Yeomans/> and thus appear larger than the constellation of Ursa Major, and occasionally brighter than the [[Milky Way]] itself.

Since 1981, satellite-based cameras have repeatedly photographed a number of objects striking earth's [[atmosphere]] and vaporizing. These might in fact be small cometary nuclei, each as large as a house. Remarkably, these objects tend to strike more frequently in the early fall than in the early winter. Some critics contend that these objects are mere camera noise, but experiments to replicate house-sized comets have succeeded in duplicating the observed effects.<ref name=Brown/>

Meteor showers often occur with comets, as the earth passes through the dust tail and some of the dust enters the [[atmosphere]]. Oddly, such showers almost always occur during late summer or fall.<ref name=Arnett/>

== Chemical composition ==
[[Image:Yerkeshalley2.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Illustration of how Halley's Comet might have looked to a naked-eye observer standing on the ground of Yerkes observatory in 1910. Moon at left, Halley's at right. Relative sizes are correct and this is the way an extremely bright comet actually looks. Although its appearance suggests motion, comets do not swoop through the sky; their position changes slowly over many hours.]]The ice portion of a comet is mostly water but might include other substances. These include [[ammonia]], [[carbon dioxide]], [[carbon monoxide]], [[methane]], and [[ethane]].<ref name=Brown/><ref name=Yeomans/>

In 1998 and 1999, Meier ''et al.'' published at least three papers showing that comets are remarkably rich in [[deuterium]] or "heavy" [[hydrogen]]. This included deuterated water (HDO)<ref name=Meier1>Meier, Roland, Owen, Tobias C., Matthews, Henry E., ''et al.'' "[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5352/842 A Determination of the HDO/H₂O Ratio in Comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp)]." ''Science'', 279(5352):842-844, February 6, 1998. {{doi|10.1126/science.279.5352.842}} Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref><ref name=Meier2>Meier, Roland, and Owens, Tobias C. "Cometary Deuterium". ''Space Science Review'', 90(1-2):33-43, 1999. Cited in Niemann HB, Atreya SK, Bauer SJ, ''et al.'' "[http://www-personal.umich.edu/~atreya/Articles/2005_GCMS_nature04122.pdf The abundances of constituents of Titan’s atmosphere from the GCMS instrument on the Huygens probe]." ''Nature'', 438:779-784, 2005. {{doi|10.1038/nature04122}} Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref> and deuterated [[hydrogen cyanide]] (DCN)<ref name=Meier3>Meier, Roland, Owen, Tobias C., Jewitt, David C., ''et al.'' "[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5357/1707 Deuterium in Comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp): Detection of DCN]." ''Science'' 279(5357):1707-1710, March 13, 1998. {{doi|10.1126/science.279.5357.1707}} Accessed July 20, 2008.</ref> In fact they have it in twice the concentration of deuterium in the seas of earth and 20 to 100 times the concentration in the rest of the solar system. In 1998 Meier stated flatly that{{cquote|Comets cannot be the only source for the oceans on Earth.}}

In July of 2004, the [[Stardust mission]] approached to within 150 miles of Comet Wild 2 and was able to sample its tail and return the samples to earth (January 2006). The returned dust was crystalline and included organic material, water ice, and many terrestrial minerals. These included [[aluminum]], [[magnesium]], [[calcium]], and [[titanium]].<ref name=Brown/>

One year later, on July 4, 2005, the [[Deep Impact mission]] conducted the first direct analysis of the rocky portion of a comet nucleus, by launching a projectile into Comet Tempel 1. The projectile liberated much material, including silicates, crystalline silicates, minerals that normally form in liquid water ([[calcium carbonate]] forms and clays), an organic material of still undetermined composition, sodium, and a very fine powder.<ref name=Brown/>

== Families of comets ==
=== By period ===
Astronomers today divide comets into at least two classes. The official definition of a ''short-period'' comet is any comet having a period of 200 years or shorter. Any comet having a longer period is called a ''long-period'' comet.<ref name=Yeomans/><ref name=space/>

Walt Brown notes that 205 comets have periods of 100 years or shorter, and 659 comets have periods of 700 years or longer. He also counts 50 ''intermediate-period'' comets having periods between those two values.

Several very long-period comets, in near-parabolic orbits, are known. No comets have ever been seen in hyperbolic orbits.

=== By apsis ===
Roughly 60% of all short-period comets belong to ''[[Jupiter]]'s family''. These are comets having aphelions varying between 4 and 6 AU. Other short-period comets have aphelia within the [[Kuiper belt]]. The long-period comets have calculated aphelia far beyond the Kuiper belt, at about 50,000 AU.<ref name=Brown/>

The perihelia of all comets vary between 1 and 3 AU.

=== By inclination ===
Short-period comets tend to lie in or close to the plane of the ecliptic. Long- and intermediate comets can have any inclination from zero to ninety degrees.<ref name=Brown/>

=== By orbital direction ===
Short-period comets are almost all in prograde orbits. But more than half of all long-period comets are in retrograde orbits.<ref name=Brown/>

=== Descriptive table ===
The following table, adapted from Brown<ref name=Brown/>, gives orbital characteristics and composition of the 964 comets now known:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Attribute
! Short
! Intermediate
! Long
|-
| Period
| < 100 a
| 100-700 a
| > 700 a
|-
| Number
| 205
| 50
| 659
|-
| Inclination to ecliptic
| Usually low
| Low to high
| Low to high
|-
| Prograde portion
| 93%
| 70%
| 47%
|-
| Retrograde portion
| 7%
| 30%
| 53%
|}

== Life span ==
Comets have remarkably short life spans. Most periodic comets, particularly in Jupiter's family, have life spans of 10,000<ref name=icr>Humphreys, D. Russell. "[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ ICR Article: Evidence for a Young World]." [[Institute for Creation Research]], n.d. Accessed July 20, 2008</ref> to 12,000 years.<ref name=Brown/> A comet may make a limited number of orbits before all its volatile substances sublimate away, leaving behind an asteroid-like rock. Certain asteroid-like objects, called ''damocloids'', in highly eccentric orbits around the sun might be inactive comets. 21 such objects are known.<ref name=Jewitt/> Some authorities estimate that half of all near-earth [[asteroid]]s are in fact cometary remnants.<ref name=Arnett/>

== Origin ==
=== Uniformitarian/evolutionary theories ===
Brown<ref name=Brown/> details several evolutionary theories of the origins of comets.
==== Oort cloud ====
: ''Main article: [[Oort Cloud]]''
Most conventional [[astronomy|astronomers]] invoke the [[nebula theory]] and state that comets are debris that failed to accrete into the [[planet]]s and [[moon]]s when the [[solar system]] formed.<ref name=Yeomans/><ref name=space/> The classic [[Oort Cloud]] theory states that the Oort cloud, a sphere measuring about 50,000 AU in radius, formed at the same time as the solar nebula and occasionally releases comets into the inner solar system as a star (possibly the reputed [[Nemesis (Star)|Nemesis]]) passes. Jewitt<ref name=Jewitt/> and others have proposed instead that comets initially formed near or immediately beyond the [[gas giant]] planets. Some of these objects persist as Kuiper belt objects. Others passed close enough to the gas giants to gain sufficient energy to launch them into high orbits, where they eventually formed the Oort cloud and, some suggest, continue to resupply it.

==== Interstellar capture ====
According to this theory, the sun passes through and perturbs clouds of interstellar dust and gas. In the process it captures large numbers of particles, which accrete into comets.

==== Meteor stream ====
Comets form continuously from a stream of meteors in various orbits around the Sun.

==== Volcanism ====
Comets are volcanic ejecta, from either the various gas giants or some of their moons.

==== Exploded planet ====
A planet originally in the region now occupied by the main asteroid belt exploded about 3,200,000 years ago. The presently observed comets and asteroids are its remnants.

==== Organic matter ====
: ''Main article: [[Panspermia]]''
Many comets contain organic compounds, including methane and ethane. This has led some scientists to speculate that comets brought to earth the initial "seeds" of life.

==== Problems for uniformitarian theories ====
Many comets have life spans less than 10,000 years. According to the [[nebula theory]], comets formed with the rest of the solar system, 4.6 billion years ago. Adherents of the interstellar capture theory try to connect the origin of cometary matter with the [[Big Bang]], which, they say, happened about 13.7 billion years ago. But in that case, all the short-period comets ought to have disappeared. This is especially true of the Jupiter family. Even if the Kuiper belt is the source of short-period comets, such comets would have to lose much kinetic [[energy]] in order to settle into the short-aphelion orbits of Jupiter's family. This begs the question of how and where they lost this energy.<ref name=Brown/>

Brown lists many other problems for various uniformitarian theories posed by comets:

# Comets form by accretion of water ice and other materials. This explains why comets usually have the consistency of snowballs and not of hard blocks of ice. Accretion from a solar nebula has never been satisfactorily modeled. Accretion requires the sudden release of a stream of matter beyond the sphere of gravitational influence of another body, and into a region in which the matter can form its own, rapidly growing sphere of influence. The putative conditions of the solar nebula do not meet this requirement.
# Large quantities of water ice have been observed on the poles of the [[moon]], the planet [[Mercury]], and now, most recently, on [[Mars]]. Why this ice has not evaporated, particularly from the moon and Mercury, where atmospheric pressures are negligible, has never been explained.
# Crystalline dust might form from an exploded planet, but it would not be likely to form in any of the other proposed models.
# If comets formed in the region of the putative Oort cloud, they would not attain near-parabolic orbits.
# The original Oort cloud model and the interstellar capture model would tend to produce perihelia with predictable alignments. The perihelia of comets are almost completely random.
# Either of the Oort cloud models would be expected to produce comets with hyperbolic orbits. No such cometary orbit has ever been observed.
# The observed perihelia, varying from 1 to 3 AU, are incompatible with any origin of comets beyond 3 au. Therefore, comets would have to form in the main asteroid belt or closer to the sun.
# The Oort cloud, if it exists, cannot be the source of short-period comets. But [[Gerard P. Kuiper]] formed the hypothesis of the belt of objects that bears his name to explain this discrepancy.
# Jupiter's family of comets cannot have come from a planetary explosion at 3 au from the sun, or from any other source described above other than volcanic ejection from Jupiter.
# If comets formed in the gas giant region and were later launched into the Oort cloud, many of the comets now observed would have destroyed one another long ago.
# The current composition of comets cannot have resulted from volcanic ejection from a gas giant.
# The unusual proportion of deuterium in comets, and only in comets, makes their origin from either the solar nebula or an interstellar dust cloud very problematic. The preferential concentration of deuterium is the most difficult observation to explain.
# The small comets recently observed striking the earth should not be observed if comets originated beyond 3 AU.
# The observed meteor craters are mostly superficial and thus inconsistent with a formation of comets within the inner solar system millions or billions of years ago. This militates against the exploded-planet and revised Oort cloud models.

For further details, see Brown's [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets9.html table] of various comet-origin theories and how well (or poorly) they explain the evidence.

=== Creation theory ===
: ''Main article: [[Hydroplate theory]]''
Brown proposes a radically different theory for the origin of comets: that they originated from matter ejected into space during the [[global flood]]. According to his [[hydroplate theory]], the Flood waters broke through a crustal rupture that persists today as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge system. This water was extremely hot and under tremendous pressure. Brown estimates that less than one percent was ejected into space. In the process, the edges of the crust at the rupture crumbled, and much of their material was ejected with the water.

The ejecta easily reached [[escape speed]] and soon passed beyond earth's gravitational influence. Some of the rocks abruptly formed spheres of influence of their own and attracted the surrounding water through gravitational accretion. Brown calculates that the ejecta included enough mass for 50,000 comets, far more than have thus far been observed.

Much of the water fell onto the moon and the planets Mercury and Mars, where it condensed and froze in the polar regions. The hydroplate theory also states that many of the rocks fell to the moon and thus created the craters and maria observed today.

Many of the comets were ejected into hyperbolic orbits, never to return to the inner solar system. Others were launched into near-parabolic orbits, either immediately or under the influence of the gas giants.

The high concentrations of deuterium reflect the initial composition of the subcrustal oceans. The organic matter came ''from'' earth and was never introduced ''to'' earth by the comets.

==== Problems for the hydroplate theory ====
The hydroplate theory has two known problems:

# Near-parabolic comets often have very long periods. Their launch in an event occurring 4400 years ago is difficult to explain, unless they received a gravitational boost from Jupiter or some other gas giant.
# Humphreys followed up on his model for the creation of planetary magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref> and calculated that the moon suffered two bombardments, neither of which were in time frames compatible with the global flood. According to Humphreys, the maria formed three centuries after the fall of man, and the visible craters formed about a century or so after the flood. If most of the comets, asteroids, and [[meteor]]oids now observed were flood ejecta, then they could have subjected the moon (and other moons in the solar system) to a heavy bombardment a century later and formed the craters. But they could not have formed the maria.

These problems, however, are distinctly minor in comparison to the great number of critical difficulties for uniformitarian theories.

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

== See Also ==
* [[Halley's Comet]]
* [[Kuiper Belt]]
* [[Oort cloud]]
* [[Nemesis (Star)]]
* [[Hydroplate theory]]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Mountain

2008-10-28T01:54:55Z

Samd: clarified

[[Image:Alaska Mt. McKinley.jpg|right|300px]]
A '''mountain''' is a mass of land that is taller than its surroundings. While there is no technical definition distinguishing between the two, a mountain is generally regarded to be much larger than a [[hill]].

There are different theories about the origin of mountains.

All mountains, at every elevation, have [[limestone]] deposits reflecting that they were once under seawater. The [[Great Flood]] accounts well for the presence of this [[limestone]] and the smooth, eroded surfaces found on most mountains.

The [[Tectonic Plate|tectonic plates]] theory speculates that some mountains rose out of the ground upon the collision of plates. These are called complex mountains, and example of which is the [[Himalayas]]. This theory cannot explain all mountains, however. Other types of mountains, such as fault-block mountains, are a result of faults pushing sections of land up higher than the surrounding areas.

Young mountains tend to be larger than older ones. One theory is that the rugged appearance of a mountain is caused by [[Glacier|glacial]] action, pinching the rock of the mountain into faces and horns.

[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Geography]]

User talk:Theyid

2008-10-28T01:45:53Z

Samd: stop it!

Stop vandalizing pages. If you don't stop, you will be blocked. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 21:45, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Stephen Fry

2008-10-28T01:45:09Z

Samd: Undo revision 544129 by Theyid (Talk)

'''Stephen Fry''' is a [[England|English]] comedian, and writer, born 24 August 1957.

He has published several books and hosts the [[television|TV]] [[comedy]] quiz show ''[[QI]]''. He is perhaps best known for his comedy partnership with [[Hugh Laurie]], with whom he appeared in the popular series ''[[Blackadder]]'' alongside [[Rowan Atkinson]]. He also had a key role as ''Gordon Dietrich'' in the film ''[[V for Vendetta]]''.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fry, Stephen}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

User:Samd

2008-10-28T01:44:54Z

Samd: HEY!!! I NEED AN ADMINISTRATOR! THE ADMIN DESK AND THE TALK PAGE OF THE ONLY ADMIN ON NOW ARE LOCKED. (this edit doens't actually change anything, I don't know how else to get someones attention)

User talk:FlyingToaster

2008-10-28T01:42:26Z

Samd: reply

Hey. If you don't like the article, or you think it is not factual, why not change it? [[User:Samd|Samd]] 21:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for the note, Samd. Conservapedia isn't really worth my time. The people here can say whatever they like to each other, and they'll believe it and revert anything else. I'll be spending my time on Wikipedia, and would encourage anyone here to do the same. -[[User:FlyingToaster|FlyingToaster]] 21:40, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::All I was saying is that you obviously spent not a little time writing that note. Instead of merely criticizing other people's work, you could have used that time instead to improve the article. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 21:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

User talk:FlyingToaster

2008-10-28T01:38:04Z

Samd: hey

Hey. If you don't like the article, or you think it is not factual, why not change it? [[User:Samd|Samd]] 21:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-28T01:37:11Z

Samd: Undo revision 544122 by FlyingToaster (Talk)

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

::I reverted your edits because they were removed/and relisted already. I side with keeping it there as it was.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 19:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::What do you mean "removed and relisted?" Is that "reinstated previous version" or does that mean something else? I think you should look at the source that is currently listed (sudairy.com, a website that has no affiliations with education or any kind of scholarly research)because the website itself has no authority to claim that it is a valid source for this information. Furthermore, the website has many names undefined, reading "Old Arabic name" instead of any information. On the Hussein entry, it reads "Husain, Husayn, Hussein - Beautiful, doer of good deads; a descendent of the Prophet" and I think you can infer from the semi colon instead of a comma that this information is separate, and refers to the namesake. This theory is supported by the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, www.thinkbabynames.com, www.babynames.com, www.behindthename.com, and many other name oriented websites. It seems like it's just a miscommunication and confusing of what a name ''means'' and what a name ''comes from''. Just because your name invokes a namesake does not mean that it means that. It is a connotative connection, rather than a denotative one. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States. [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:That source doesn't say what you claim it says. The source ''does'' say, however, that "No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site." This is false, and has been false for months: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::This has almost as much relevance as making a connection between McCain and Cain. Yes, John McCain is obviously a descendent of a murderer, and hence, must be a murderer himself.

::One point missed. Obama is from Chicago. Chicago's zip code is 60606. Add those sixes you get the number of the Devil himself.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Are you asserting that the 2,836,658 inhabitants of Chicago are Devils, Muslims or Antichrists due to their zip code.
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]
::...Allah is Arabic for God, it's actually used by anyone who speaks Arabic no matter if they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew. That and it's the same god, the god of Abraham. Also, Mohammad is an important non-divine figurehead in Islam, but I don't think "One nation under Mohammad" would be used than "One nation under Moses". I'm sure liberals as well as anyone else with the basic knowledge of religion or law ''is'' offended by your lack of understanding. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, this should be removed. If he says he is a Christian then he is a Christian. You can't go and examine the details of the life of every person to see if they are a "true" Christian or not, isn't there something in the bible about not judging people? Or should we start seeing if we can judge whether the rest of the candidates are ''really'' what they say they are. None of the points listed at the top of his page give any real plausible reason to think that Obama is a Muslim. Just because conversions are rare does not mean they are impossible. Congratulations, Obama may just be a part of that 1%. His name does not reflect his faith, every man named "Jesus" is not a Christian. Respecting a man who was Muslim does not make you a Muslim. I'm inspired by Ghandi, but that doesn't make me a Hindu. Reading a Muslim book does not make you a Muslim. I've read parts of the bible, the quar'an, the torah, the dhammapada, the Rig Veda, as well as works of fiction that include views of all of these religions. It would be silly to say that I am an adherent to all or any of those religions just because I have read them. Pronouncing the name of a country correctly is also not an indication of religion, or is General Petraeus a Muslim too? Of course I also wonder why this is such a prominent thing to begin with. He's a presidential candidate and the top of his page here is devoted to speculation about his religious faith. Isn't his policy much more important? I for one don't see the problem in having a Muslim president. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-28T01:36:54Z

Samd: Undo revision 544123 by FlyingToaster (Talk)

Quadrillion

2008-10-28T01:19:27Z

Samd: sentence flow

A '''Quadrillion''' in the [[American]] numerical system is a unit of measurement equal to one-thousand trillion. It is designated by 1 and 15 zeros or 1,000,000,000,000,000

[[Category:Mathematics]]

User:Samd/conserv.js

2008-10-28T01:17:30Z

Samd: created page with two scripts

addOnloadHook(function () {
if ( wgCanonicalNamespace == "Special" )
return; // don't display link for special pages

url = wgServer + "/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=" + encodeURIComponent(wgPageName);

addPortletLink("p-tb", url, "Page logs", "pt-logs");
});

function liveClock()
{

liveClock.node = addPortletLink( 'p-personal', wgServer + wgScriptPath + '/index.php?title=' + encodeURIComponent(wgPageName) + '&action=purge', '', 'utcdate' );
liveClock.node.style.fontSize = 'larger';
liveClock.node.style.fontWeight = 'bolder';

showTime();
}
addOnloadHook(liveClock)

function showTime()
{

var dateNode = liveClock.node;
if( !dateNode ) {
return;
}
var now = new Date();
var hh = now.getHours();
var mm = now.getMinutes();
var ss = now.getSeconds();
var time = ( hh < 10 ? '0' + hh : hh ) + ':' + ( mm < 10 ? '0' + mm : mm ) + ':' + ( ss < 10 ? '0' + ss : ss );
dateNode.firstChild.replaceChild( document.createTextNode( time ), dateNode.firstChild.firstChild );

window.setTimeout(showTime, 1000);
}

Conservapedia:Oversight

2008-10-28T00:58:01Z

Samd: corrected spelling error and expanded

Oversighters have the ability to ''permanently'' hide revisions from view. This is often used to hide personally identifiable information that was posted inappropriately. Oversight is also sometimes used to hide particularly harsh libel or personal attacks.

Revisions hidden via oversight can only be restored by a developer.

For more information on this feature, please see the MediaWiki release notes located at [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight].

Conservapedia:Oversight

2008-10-28T00:55:31Z

Samd: Again, essentially a redirect to the MediaWiki release notes. Delete if you think this is unnecessary

Oversighters have the ability to ''permanently'' hide revisions from view. This is often used to hide personally indentifiable information that was posted inappropriately. Oversight is also sometimes used to hide particularly harsh libel or personal attacks.

For more information on this feature, please see the MediaWiki release notes located at [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight].

Conservapedia:Check user

2008-10-28T00:54:23Z

Samd: created page - essentially a redirect to the MediaWiki release notes. Feel free to delete if you think this is unnecessary

Check users have the ability to look at the IP address or addresses that underly user accounts. This feature is useful for finding and blocking accounts created by the same user for the purpose of evading a block or to influence discussions.

For more information on this feature, please see the MediaWiki release notes located at [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser].

Marmalade

2008-10-28T00:05:43Z

Samd: Not much, but at least it is remotely respectable

'''Marmalade''' is a [[British]] [[preserve]] commonly made from [[orange]]s. Orange marmalade sometimes includes small pieces of orange peel along with the jam.

Marmalade is often made with Seville oranges, so named because it originated in [[Seville, Spain]]. Seville oranges are favoured because they have a higher concentration of [[pectin]] than most other types of oranges. The higher pectin content tends to make the marmalade set better than it would otherwise.

[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Talk:Marmalade

2008-10-27T23:53:28Z

Samd: reply

This is a gag, right? What did oranges have to do with rocketry? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:56, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== British? ==

Is British marmalade different than American marmalade? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:That entire page was obviously written by a troll. I'll see if I can get something remotely respectable up there. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 19:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Jus gentium

2008-10-09T03:06:11Z

Samd: Undo revision 532696 by Thisaccountisfake (Talk)

'''Jus gentium''' is [[Latin]] for "law of nations" and refers to the body of international law.

[[Category:Latin Legal Terms]]