Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with hi schildish idiocy?

2011-09-20T21:24:38Z

JMairs:

I propose moving that to Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with '''his childish''' idiocy?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:15, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Yep, saw the typo. I think it's done. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 17:16, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Yes it is !--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:18, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Excellent. OK: as of when I go to bed tonight (or until a certain childish individual blocks me, whichever is sooner) I am going to boycott Conservapedia until such time as [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is banned and edit at http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info instead, and I'm going to encourage everyone I can to do the same. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 17:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Does Thunderf00t lack machismo?

2011-09-20T21:21:40Z

JMairs:

==What is with you and machismo ?==
Conservative, I find it really intriguing that you spend so much time and energy writing disputable essays about machismo. 
What is with you and machismo ? No offense but have you heard of [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overcompensation overcompensation] ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:58, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Unless there's a reference to it in one of his own articles then the answer is almost certainly no. It's not worth arguing with Conservative; he's probably the single biggest reason for the low esteem that most people hold CP in. If you Google "Demyers laws" you'll find a set of laws on how to lose an internet debate that were inspired by his "work" here. My advice is to give up on CP and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page, a Christian encyclopaedia that isn't obsessed with Penn Jillette's buttocks and pictures of rabbits. I feel sorry for Andy Schlafly, but frankly if he doesn't rein in that idiot he has only himself to blame. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 17:02, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::That is exactly what I was asking myself: why does Andy do nothing about Conservative, who is clearly not helping CP ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Who knows? I wish he would, because I'd really rather NOT leave here; there are plenty of good, decent editors who'd love to help make it into what Andy wanted it to be, but are prevented by that idiot and his obsession with looking at atheist's bodies. I'll just add that Conservative is also a pathologically dishonest individual who refuses to answer questions, changes the subject (Usually to "Why don't you write MORE inane articles of the sort you're criticising me for writing if you think I'm doing a bad job?") and makes 100 edits a day while his (locked - the coward) talk page claims he won't be doing much at Conservapedia for a while. Oh no; he's doing PLENTY at Conservapedia - mainly destroying its credibility. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 17:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
ARamis, I do understand that atheists/liberals have a penchant for armchair internet psychology (which I think is rather humorous given the issue of [[Atheism and mental health]]), but I do think you would would be better off addressing the content of the satire. Although there is some good work being done in cognitive psychology and other branches of psychology (cognitive psychologist help designing products, etc.), it certainly can be argued that counseling psychology suffers from a lack of effectiveness in many cases. And of course, armchair internet psychology is probably even more inane.

Christian author Todd A. Sinelli wrote in an article entitled ''To Whom Shall We Go?'':
{{Cquote|Psychology is ineffective, impotent, and embarrassingly deceptive. The great humbug is that “the psychological industry has successfully concealed its ineffectiveness from the general public. Pastors, churches, and the laity have been brainwashed into believing that only psychologically trained professional counselors are competent to deal with serious problems.”

Empirical research indicates the exact opposite. In a study done by J.A. Durlack entitled Comparitive Effectiveness of Paraprofessional and Professional Helpers he writes, “The research reviewed forty-two studies that compared professional counselors with untrained helpers. The findings were ‘consistent and provocative.’ Paraprofessionals achieve clinical outcomes equal to or significantly better than those obtained by professionals . . . The study, on the whole, lent no support to the major hypothesis that . . . the technical skills of professional psychotherapists produce measurably better therapeutic change.”

At the conclusion of this study, psychologist Gary Collins reluctantly admits, “Clearly there is evidence that for most people, laypeople can counsel as well as or better than professionals.” Again, the bottom line is that Christians are not to turn to psychologist for guidance. Primarily because the Word of God instructs us not to and God has given us the ability to counsel one another through His Word.<ref>http://littorch.com/articles/to-whom-shall-we-go/</ref>}}

See also: [http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1979-31736-001 Abstract - Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers] and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6399757 PubMed citation - Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers]

A 1985 paper entitled ''Does professional training make a therapist more effective?'' which was published by the University of Texas reported there was no substantial difference in between the results that laymen and trained psychologists are able to achieve.<ref>http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall07/brunnquelld/psy8542/Session%2007/Berman%20session%207_1986-02211-001.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3901068</ref>

:Who are you, and who asked your opinion? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 17:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

.

==References==
<references />

Talk:Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with hi schildish idiocy?

2011-09-20T21:16:21Z

JMairs:

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2011-09-20T21:14:24Z

JMairs: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists.]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
# [[Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with his childish idiocy?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2011-09-20T21:12:09Z

JMairs: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists.]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
# [[Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with hi schildish idiocy?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Essay: Does Thunderf00t lack machismo?

2011-09-20T21:10:10Z

JMairs:

Talk:Essay: Does Thunderf00t lack machismo?

2011-09-20T21:09:46Z

JMairs:

Talk:Essay: Does Thunderf00t lack machismo?

2011-09-20T21:02:44Z

JMairs:

Halton Arp

2011-09-20T20:58:13Z

JMairs:

'''Halton Arp''' is a retired American astronomer, the author of 1987 book ''"Quasars, redshifts and controversies"''<ref>

Arp, Halton, 1987, ''"Quasars, redshifts and controversies"'', Interstallar Media,2153 Russel Street, Berkeley, CA, ISBN 0-941325-00-8.

</ref> who fell out of favour due to his behaviour after his unconventional theory on the nature of [[quasar]]s was conclusively disproved by the Hubble Space Telescope. In 1993 Arp co-athored with J. Narlikar a paper on geometry of spacetime.<ref> He later worked at the Max Planck Institute and still lives in Germany.

Narlikar, J. & Arp, H., 1993, ''"Flat spacetime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts"'', Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X) vol. 405, no. 1, The American Astronomical Society, p.51-56, Bibliographic code: 1993 ApJ...405...51N

</ref> that proposed the idea of flat spacetime also proposed by other authors<ref>

See a detailed explanation of the mechanism of Einsteinian gravitation [[Gravitation demystified]]. It explains the Einsteinian gravitational force as ''inertial push'' at the quantum level in ''[[flat spacetime]]''.

</ref>.

Arp's research contradicts the idea of expanding universe and confirms the idea that the universe is stationary as it was suggested with exact relativistic physics and Newtonian math in 1985 by others.
<ref>

See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]. Except conservapedia (and briefly in RW, before access to the papers were blocked by the University of Warsaw, Poland) they were never published though by any mainstream scientific journal and therefore remain relatively unknown to the maistream physicists and astronomers.

</ref>.

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-20T20:52:47Z

JMairs: /* Vanadium and tunicates */

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

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

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

== HIV and Evolution ==

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

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

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-20T20:47:24Z

JMairs: Undo revision 918462 by FCapra (talk)I disagree, but hey, I'm on my way out. Good luck.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 51 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 7%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over tens of millions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity as a whole.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
#In February 2010 NASA-funded researchers at Mono Lake in California found a new strain of microbe which substitutes the phosphorous normally found in cellular components (such as DNA and RNA) with arsenic.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html</ref> If this had occurred step by step due to a random mutation in part of the genome the mutant would have been unable to reproduce, and the odds against the entire genome mutating to use a normally toxic element simultaneously are too high for this to be credible. This rules out the microbe having a common ancestor with all other living things. However the microbe (known as GFAJ-1) is a member of a common group of bacteria, which rules out life on Earth having evolved from two separate original organisms (one phosphorous- and one arsenic-based.) The most parsimonious explanation is that GFAJ-1 was separately created.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. 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 set simultaneously.
# 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>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. Why would there be more commonality between two more distantly related primates than between two more closely related ones? Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

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

===Uncategorized===

# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

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

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

World History Homework Two Answers - Student 6

2011-09-20T20:45:55Z

JMairs:

1. The Greek empire was around from approx. 750-330 B.C. It started with the surgence of Greece, and ended with the death of Alexander the Great.

:Correct approximate dates, which is all that is needed, but "surgence" is not a word. Perhaps "resurgence"? (but that's not quite right in this context either). (Minus 1).

2. My favorite Aesop fable was the Tortise and the Hare since it shows how even an unlikely force can win.

:Good (spelling: "tortoise")

3. An important Greek philosopher was Plato, who wrote works including ''The Republic''. This work is the basis of the modern American republic. His works contributed to reason and he was one of the most brilliant men in the Greek culture. Aristotle, one of Plato's students, was another important person in the empire. Unlike Plato, he thought experience was key. He was also very interested in biology.

:Terrific.

6. Another three terms I picked are Gupta empire, Hebrews, and Israel

:Very good.

:Grade: 39/40. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:40, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'm a huge fan of your history courses: the content is very good and from what I've seen you're an excellent teacher. I'm sorry that I feel I have to leave Conservapedia. It's not your fault and I wish you all the best in your endeavours. Oh, and Student 6 - well done! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:45, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

World History Homework Two Answers - Student 6

2011-09-20T20:45:08Z

JMairs:

1. The Greek empire was around from approx. 750-330 B.C. It started with the surgence of Greece, and ended with the death of Alexander the Great.

:Correct approximate dates, which is all that is needed, but "surgence" is not a word. Perhaps "resurgence"? (but that's not quite right in this context either). (Minus 1).

2. My favorite Aesop fable was the Tortise and the Hare since it shows how even an unlikely force can win.

:Good (spelling: "tortoise")

3. An important Greek philosopher was Plato, who wrote works including ''The Republic''. This work is the basis of the modern American republic. His works contributed to reason and he was one of the most brilliant men in the Greek culture. Aristotle, one of Plato's students, was another important person in the empire. Unlike Plato, he thought experience was key. He was also very interested in biology.

:Terrific.

6. Another three terms I picked are Gupta empire, Hebrews, and Israel

:Very good.

:Grade: 39/40. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:40, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'm a huge fan of your history courses: the content is very good and from what I've seen you're an excellent teacher. I'm sorry that I feel I have to leave Conservapedia. It's not your fault and I wish you all the best in your endeavours. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:45, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Tea Party Movement

2011-08-26T22:49:57Z

JMairs: /* Origin of "teabaggers" */ new section

{{Articletalkheader}}

==TEA Party==
TEA Party - wouldn't this be a backronym? When it first started, it was just in reference to the Boston Tea Party, as far as I can tell - making it stand for something seems to have come later. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Since before the Tax Day Tea Parties took place, '''TEA''' was and always has stood for 'Taxed Enough Already'. There's a difference between an acronym and a theme. You should read the [[Tea Party Movement]] page, the intro will answer your question and the rest will clarify it for you. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:17, 11 December 2009 (EST)

== Please fix vandalism ==

"In early 2010 it remains an under-organized, underfunded amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several aspiring conservatives especially Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its leader." [[User:Danq|danq]] 22:43, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== "An under-organized, underfunded amateurs' movement with obscure leadership." ==

Does this really need to go back in the article, RJJensen? [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 23:58, 14 January 2010 (EST)

:I agree.It is a grassroots movement, amateurish is not accurate. The movement does not have any one leader or leaders- mediocre leadership??? Under-organized? possible two million people met in D.C. on 9/12. Underfunded? I did not realize that sponsors are hurting for cash. Marc Rubio is trying to be elected as a conservative candidate for Senate. I see nothing whereby he is vying for leadership position within the TEA party movement. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:02, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::Yeah, it's accurate. "amateur" -- yes this is a movement against professionals by people with no political experience. The national and state leadership cannot even be named because they do not exist. The funding does not exist. Who't the treasurer? where are the required financial reports? There's grass roots enthusiasm but much less organization than a high school pep rally. Now people may rejoice in this unled, underfunded, unorganized group but we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to describe it accurately and not ignore its most obvious characteristics. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:09, 15 January 2010 (EST)
While "amateurish" may be accurate, it's a general term. "Grassroots" is a somewhat more specific term which implies that it is not run by professional politicians (ie, amateur). I also feel the amount of funding isn't the point: the fact that it brought two million people together in one spot demonstrates that whatever funding it has is at least sufficient to accomplish the primary goals of the movement, that is, organizing protests. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:14, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::what is their primary goal??? without any visible leaders or any agreed on policy statement, that's very hard to say. I think the goal is to purify the GOP. That is they are really keen to throw out bad GOP leaders. This is an echo of the progressive antibossism movement of 1900 (see [[Recall Election]]. What's very different is that the progressives of 1900 were very well organized, and very well led. "amateurish" means they are inexperienced outsiders. There have been lots of movements like the Tea Partiers in American history and all of them have failed to achieve any of their goals. There were several in the 1930s, for example, such as "Share the Wealth", "Ham and Eggs" and the "Townsend Movement". In the 1880s the prohibitionists fit exactly the same mold. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:41, 15 January 2010 (EST)

I've written it to be more polite and accurate while keeping RJJensen's message. See edit "Compromise" -[[User:Danq|danq]]
::Nice job. I like it. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 14:25, 15 January 2010 (EST)
:::good solution--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:38, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::::If anyone has a problem they need to take it to the talk page first. And name-calling a senior administrator a liberal is beyond the bounds of propriety here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:22, 15 January 2010 (EST)

*I agree with Jpatt, and have reverted. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:55, 15 January 2010 (EST)

==Is it racist?==

Liberals delight in calling the Tea Party racist, but I don't think they have any evidence of this. Would anyone care to comment? (You'd think at least they would try to fake it.) What about Andrew Breitbart's $100,000 offer to anyone coming up with a video? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:53, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
:The only racists outed have been liberals disguised as Tea Party Members. But you don't have to hold a racist sign to be called racist. The lamestream media calls the crowd mostly white- implying racism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:24, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

== Referencing? ==

I've done some slight rewording and added a sentence that I think is important to the history of the Tea Party movement. It refers to execution of a Tea Party 2007 on December 16th of that year by the supporters of Ron Paul. However, I can not figure out how to reference the YouTube video that is the best compilation of sources reporting on the phenomenon. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

Another reference for the statement I've inserted can be found here: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090415005738&newsLang=en

I'm new at this and if anybody can help me out, I'd be very appreciative. I think it's important to defining the actual roots and positions of the original TEA party.

:Along with some other organizational edits, I added a reference to the ronpaulforums.com page where a news video covering the event was posted. I also updated the sentence, which was: ''"One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a 'Tea Party 2007' to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government."'' I corrected this sentence because the statement "manifestation of both the movement and the name" seems to imply that the TEA Party Movement materialized or manifested itself from the "Tea Party 2007" event, which is not accurate, as I referenced in citations. The only relation between the two is in their theme. One of the primary differences between the movement and Ron Paul's Tea Party 2007 rally, although related in theme, is in the use of the backronym "TEA."
:I do not believe Ron Paul's rally used a backronym for the word "Tea"; he and his supporters used the name to describe how their event was a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party, which was also held to promote Ron Paul's bid for presidency. The Tea Party Movement is by the American people, not just American people for Ron Paul; it is America's indictment against the ruling class. Moreover, if Ron Paul's "Tea Party 2007" rally were a real Tea Party Movement protest, then the $6 million in donations received from it would not have gone to only Ron Paul's presidency campaign, it would have gone to the Tea Party Movement. It would have gone to help support all candidates whose values are in-line with the American people taking part in the movement. Candidates don't choose the Tea Party, the Tea Party chooses the candidates based on their values. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Origin of "teabaggers" ==

In case anyone's interested, in using the term "teabaggers" Obama was being EXTREMELY offensive and making slanderous implications of homosexuality. The terms "teabagging" and "teabagger" are British military slang and extremely crude. As this is a family-friendly encyclopaedia I won't go into details, but the teabag in question is a small sac on the male body that appears to be made of elbow skin. It's not just a derogatory play on words; it's a serious and pretty despicable insult. If someone called ME a teabagger I would be extremely upset. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:49, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-26T05:14:15Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-26T01:48:53Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-26T01:43:44Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-25T16:52:59Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

Freemasonry

2011-08-24T17:04:06Z

JMairs: /* Degrees */

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternal organization, that is, an organisation for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member. In Masonry, the supreme being is sometime called "The Great Architect of the Universe," a term that is said to be traceable back to the Christian thelogian, John Calvin.

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. The Mark degree can be gained after Master Mason but is considered to be an expansion of the Fellow Craft degree. The degree ceremonies traditionally involve participation in a number of stylised scenes from the building of the Temple and a series of moral lessons largely derived from the Old Testament and the tools and rituals of operative Masons. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the York Rite or the Holy Royal Arch. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

Neil Armstrong, American Astronaut

HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh, (1935-)

Prince Michael of Kent, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish Jr, 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion, (1979-)

Trent Lott, US Senator and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery, Governor-General of Australia, (1937-)

Kermit W. Richardson, National Master (President) - National Grange

John H. Glenn, Pilot, Astronaut and US Senator (1921-)

Historically well known Masons:

Sir John J.C Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure Liberty Enlightening the World, aka the Statue of Liberty, (1834-1904)

Robert Burns, Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord Randolph Churchill, British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 - 1965)

Ty Cobb, Baseball legend

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author (Sherlock Holmes)) (1859 - 1930)

W.E.B. DuBois, Scholar and co-founder of the NAACP (1868-1963)

HM Edward VII, King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM Edward VIII, King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury (1887 - 1972)

Sir Alexander Fleming, medical doctor (Penicillin) (1881 - 1955)

Gerald R. Ford, US President

Henry Ford, automotive executive

Benjamin Franklin, US diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling, engineer and inventor (1818-1903)

HM George VI, King

Sir William S. Gilbert, poet/libretist (Gilbert and Sullivan) (1836 - 1911)

Tim Horton, Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants (1930 - 1974)

Dr. Edward Jenner, medical doctor (wound sterilisation) (1749 - 1823)

Alexander Kerensky, Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945, (1878-1956)

Rudyard Kipling, author (1865 - 1936)

Gen. Robert E. Lee, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

Charles A. Lindbergh, American aviator (1902-1974)

General Douglas MacArthur, US Chief of Staff (1880-1964)

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie, Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator (1897-1999)

Franz Anton Mesmer, 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist (1734-1815)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, musical composer (The Magic Flute contains many Masonic references) (1756-1791)

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr, USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

Admiral Robert E. Peary, polar explorer (1856-1920)

Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin, Russian poet and author (Boris Gudunov) (1799-1837)

Sir Cecil Rhodes, African entrepreneur (1852 - 1903)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, US President

Sir Walter Scott, British historical novelist and poet (1771 - 1832)

Red Skelton, actor, comedian (1913-1997)

Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1805-1844)

Sir Arthur Sullivan, composer (Gilbert and Sullian) (1842 - 1900)

Dave Thomas, Philanthropist and founder of Wendy's (restaurant chain)

Anthony Trollope, British novelist (1815 - 1882)

Harry S Truman, US President

Robert Pershing Wadlow, tallest man on record (1918-1940)

General George Washington, US President (1732-1799)

Field Marshal 1st Duke of Wellington (1769 - 1852)

William Charles Wentworth, Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia (1790-1872)

Darryl F. Zanuck, movie maker (1902-1979)

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==External links==
The Philalethes Society
Grand Lodge of England
Masonry Catholic Encyclopedia.
World Conference of Grand Masters
Origin of Free Masonry Historical Documents: Thomas Paine
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Freemasonry"

Freemasonry

2011-08-24T16:52:44Z

JMairs: The Shriners are a US-only organisation; outside teh USA everyone is more familiar with craft Freemasonry.

[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]

'''Freemasonry''' is a fraternal organization, that is, an organisation for men, with a worldwide membership of around 4 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on Biblical imagery mostly concerned with the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the best-known Freemasons in the USA are the Shriners, who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.

Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for charity.

The central tenets of Freemasonry are:

Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;

Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);

Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.

The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compass," which is used to teach, respectively, "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds". For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in one god or supreme being and in the immortality of the soul. As a result, members of different religions, if monotheistic, are admitted to membership with no expectation that they accept as correct or affirm the religions creeds of any other member. In Masonry, the supreme being is sometime called "The Great Architect of the Universe," a term that is said to be traceable back to the Christian thelogian, John Calvin.

Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors. They are pledged, however, to come to the assistance of other Masons if they are in need, so long as this does not involve any violation of one's ethical standards or imperil the well-being of the assisting Mason's family.

==Degrees==
Standard Freemasonry is divided into three degrees:

the first is called Entered Apprentice,
the second is Fellow Craft, and
the third is Master Mason.
Progressing through the degrees traditionally involves memorization. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and the York Rite. These are considered to be branches of Freemasonry, never "higher" or superior degrees above that of Master Mason.

==History==
There is little known for certain about the beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered, even by Masons, to be improbable. Certainly, lodges of "operative" Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the Middle Ages in Europe and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or guilds for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching.

When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or "speculative" masons. (However, some claim that the lodges first started with the ancient Hebrews or with Pythagoras or Euclid, both ancient Greek geometers. This is supposed to explain Masonry's emphasis upon geometric symbolism.)

In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in London and formed the Grand Lodge of England. It later chartered grand lodges in other countries.

==Famous Freemasons==
Living/active Masons:

Neil Armstrong, American Astronaut

HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967, cousin of both Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh, (1935-)

Prince Michael of Kent, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons in England

Sam Hornish Jr, 2006 Indianapolis 500 champion, three-time Indy Racing League champion, (1979-)

Trent Lott, US Senator and Senate Majority Leader

Major General Sir Michael Jeffery, Governor-General of Australia, (1937-)

Kermit W. Richardson, National Master (President) - National Grange

John H. Glenn, Pilot, Astronaut and US Senator (1921-)

Historically well known Masons:

Sir John J.C Abbott, Prime Minister of Canada (1821-1893)

Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist, biologist, explorer (1744 - 1820)

Frédéric A. Bartholdi, French sculptor best known for his figure Liberty Enlightening the World, aka the Statue of Liberty, (1834-1904)

Robert Burns, Scottish nationalist, poet (1759 - 1796)

Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving member of the US Congress

Lord Randolph Churchill, British statesman (1849 - 1895)

Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 - 1965)

Ty Cobb, Baseball legend

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author (Sherlock Holmes)) (1859 - 1930)

W.E.B. DuBois, Scholar and co-founder of the NAACP (1868-1963)

HM Edward VII, King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

HM Edward VIII, King, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England

The Most Rev. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury (1887 - 1972)

Sir Alexander Fleming, medical doctor (Penicillin) (1881 - 1955)

Gerald R. Ford, US President

Henry Ford, automotive executive

Benjamin Franklin, US diplomat, publisher, and inventor

Richard J. Gatling, engineer and inventor (1818-1903)

HM George VI, King

Sir William S. Gilbert, poet/libretist (Gilbert and Sullivan) (1836 - 1911)

Tim Horton, Toronto Maple Leafs hockey standout and founder of Tim Horton's restaurants (1930 - 1974)

Dr. Edward Jenner, medical doctor (wound sterilisation) (1749 - 1823)

Alexander Kerensky, Russian Prime Minister

Admiral Ernest J. King, Commander-in-Chief - US Fleet 1941, Chief of Naval Operations 1942-1945, (1878-1956)

Rudyard Kipling, author (1865 - 1936)

Gen. Robert E. Lee, leader of the Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America

Charles A. Lindbergh, American aviator (1902-1974)

General Douglas MacArthur, US Chief of Staff (1880-1964)

Dr. Parker Paul McKenzie, Kiowa Indian, linguist, grammarian, educator (1897-1999)

Franz Anton Mesmer, 'mesmerist' (hypnotist), psychologist (1734-1815)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, musical composer (The Magic Flute contains many Masonic references) (1756-1791)

Lt. Gen. Herman Nickerson, Jr, USMC, Commander of I-Corps theater of operations in Vietnam

The Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, Christian pastor, evangelist, and writer

Admiral Robert E. Peary, polar explorer (1856-1920)

Aleksandr Sergeyvich Pushkin, Russian poet and author (Boris Gudunov) (1799-1837)

Sir Cecil Rhodes, African entrepreneur (1852 - 1903)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, US President

Sir Walter Scott, British historical novelist and poet (1771 - 1832)

Red Skelton, actor, comedian (1913-1997)

Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1805-1844)

Sir Arthur Sullivan, composer (Gilbert and Sullian) (1842 - 1900)

Dave Thomas, Philanthropist and founder of Wendy's (restaurant chain)

Anthony Trollope, British novelist (1815 - 1882)

Harry S Truman, US President

Robert Pershing Wadlow, tallest man on record (1918-1940)

General George Washington, US President (1732-1799)

Field Marshal 1st Duke of Wellington (1769 - 1852)

William Charles Wentworth, Australian explorer and editor of first newspaper in Australia (1790-1872)

Darryl F. Zanuck, movie maker (1902-1979)

==Women and Freemasonry==
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry, and there are several auxiliaries for female relatives of Masons. The best known of these is the Order of the Eastern Star. Freemasons are permitted both to attend its meetings and become members of the OES.

Irregular Freemasonry including women:

There are some self-styled Masonic organisations that also accept women. These organisations are often referred to by the term, "Co-masonry". A few are exclusively for women. These are not considered "regular" by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodges if they are known to have attended meetings of these so-called "clandestine" organisations.

==External links==
The Philalethes Society
Grand Lodge of England
Masonry Catholic Encyclopedia.
World Conference of Grand Masters
Origin of Free Masonry Historical Documents: Thomas Paine
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Freemasonry"

Talk:Cosmological redshift

2011-08-24T15:46:53Z

JMairs: Created page with "This is ANOTHER duplicate article on redshift created by JimJast. I nominate it for deletion, as was done for the Hubble Redshift article. --~~~~"

This is ANOTHER duplicate article on redshift created by JimJast. I nominate it for deletion, as was done for the Hubble Redshift article. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 11:46, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

The Dark Knight

2011-08-24T15:10:18Z

JMairs: There, that's better.

{{Infobox Film
| name= Batman Begins
| image=
| caption=
| director=[[Christopher Nolan]]
| producer=Kevin De La Noy Benjamin Melniker Christopher Nolan Lorne Orleans Charles Roven Emma Thomas Thomas Tull Michael E. Uslan
| writer=Bob Kane (original) David S. Goyer Christopher Nolan Jonathan Nolan
| narrator=
| starring=Christian Bale [[Heath Ledger]] Aaron Ekhart Michael Caine Maggie Gyllenhaal Gary Oldman [[Morgan Freeman]]
| music= Hans Zimmer James Newton Howard
| cinematography=Wally Pfister
| editing=Lee Smith
| distributor=[[Warner Brothers]]
| released=July 18, 2008
| runtime=152 min
| country=[[United States]]
| language=[[English]]
| budget=
| gross=
| preceded_by=[[Batman Begins]]
| followed_by=[[The Dark Knight Rises]]
| website=
| amg_id2=
| imdb_id=0468569
}}

'''The Dark Knight''' is a 2008 [[superhero]] film, directed by Christopher Nolan as a sequel to his earlier film, ''[[Batman Begins]]''. [[Heath Ledger]] in his last completed performance portrayed [[Joker (comics)|the Joker]] as a dark, insane criminal. Ledger [http://www.conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values#Deaths| died during post-production] and won a posthumous [[Academy Award]] for Best Supporting Actor. The film also won another Oscar for Best Achievment in Sound Editing and was nominated for another six Academy Awards. The film was rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace. It is also considered to be one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|best conservative movies]] due to its message of not yielding to terrorists.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dark Knight, The}}
[[Category: Movies]]

The Dark Knight

2011-08-24T15:09:40Z

JMairs: Undo revision 904936 by JMairs (talk)Oh wait...

{{Infobox Film
| name= Batman Begins
| image=
| caption=
| director=[[Christopher Nolan]]
| producer=Kevin De La Noy Benjamin Melniker Christopher Nolan Lorne Orleans Charles Roven Emma Thomas Thomas Tull Michael E. Uslan
| writer=Bob Kane (original) David S. Goyer Christopher Nolan Jonathan Nolan
| narrator=
| starring=Christian Bale [[Heath Ledger]] Aaron Ekhart Michael Caine Maggie Gyllenhaal Gary Oldman [[Morgan Freeman]]
| music= Hans Zimmer James Newton Howard
| cinematography=Wally Pfister
| editing=Lee Smith
| distributor=[[Warner Brothers]]
| released=July 18, 2008
| runtime=152 min
| country=[[United States]]
| language=[[English]]
| budget=
| gross=
| preceded_by=[[Batman Begins]]
| followed_by=[[The Dark Knight Rises]]
| website=
| amg_id2=
| imdb_id=0468569
}}

'''The Dark Knight''' is a 2008 [[superhero]] film, directed by Christopher Nolan as a sequel to his earlier film, ''[[Batman Begins]]''. [[Heath Ledger]] in his last completed performance portrayed [[Joker (comics)|the Joker]] as a dark, insane criminal. Ledger [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values#Deaths|died during post-production]] and won a posthumous [[Academy Award]] for Best Supporting Actor. The film also won another Oscar for Best Achievment in Sound Editing and was nominated for another six Academy Awards. The film was rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace. It is also considered to be one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|best conservative movies]] due to its message of not yielding to terrorists.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dark Knight, The}}
[[Category: Movies]]

The Dark Knight

2011-08-24T15:08:56Z

JMairs: Undo revision 904891 by Karajou (talk)Looks to me like ConnorK actually fixed a fault with this.

{{Infobox Film
| name= Batman Begins
| image=
| caption=
| director=[[Christopher Nolan]]
| producer=Kevin De La Noy Benjamin Melniker Christopher Nolan Lorne Orleans Charles Roven Emma Thomas Thomas Tull Michael E. Uslan
| writer=Bob Kane (original) David S. Goyer Christopher Nolan Jonathan Nolan
| narrator=
| starring=Christian Bale [[Heath Ledger]] Aaron Ekhart Michael Caine Maggie Gyllenhaal Gary Oldman [[Morgan Freeman]]
| music= Hans Zimmer James Newton Howard
| cinematography=Wally Pfister
| editing=Lee Smith
| distributor=[[Warner Brothers]]
| released=July 18, 2008
| runtime=152 min
| country=[[United States]]
| language=[[English]]
| budget=
| gross=
| preceded_by=[[Batman Begins]]
| followed_by=[[The Dark Knight Rises]]
| website=
| amg_id2=
| imdb_id=0468569
}}

'''The Dark Knight''' is a 2008 [[superhero]] film, directed by Christopher Nolan as a sequel to his earlier film, ''[[Batman Begins]]''. [[Heath Ledger]] in his last completed performance portrayed [[Joker (comics)|the Joker]] as a dark, insane criminal. Ledger [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values#Deaths]]died during post-production and won a posthumous [[Academy Award]] for Best Supporting Actor. The film also won another Oscar for Best Achievment in Sound Editing and was nominated for another six Academy Awards. The film was rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace. It is also considered to be one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|best conservative movies]] due to its message of not yielding to terrorists.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Dark Knight, The}}
[[Category: Movies]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-24T14:31:26Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-24T13:50:49Z

JMairs: /* Artistic beauty argument */

Talk:Cosmological constant

2011-08-23T23:16:12Z

JMairs: Created page with "Einstein's cosmological constant is NOT kept by "relativists" to allow the Big Bang model. It is NOT REQUIRED for the classic Big Bang model. The modified cosmological constant w..."

Einstein's cosmological constant is NOT kept by "relativists" to allow the Big Bang model. It is NOT REQUIRED for the classic Big Bang model. The modified cosmological constant which some people hypothesise to be dark energy is part of the INFLATIONARY model, not the classic Big Bang one. In addition, claims to have disproved dark energy but have the work suppressed by "relativists" seem to be a bit ambitious and possibly premature. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Cosmological constant

2011-08-23T23:13:01Z

JMairs: This is so bad it's not even wrong. Please see talk page.

'''Cosmological constant''' is constant <math>\Lambda</math> of Einstein field equation
:<math>R_{\mu\nu}-(R/2)g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>,
where <math>R_{\mu\nu}</math> is Ricci tensor, <math>R</math> is its contraction, <math>g_{\mu\nu}</math> is metric tensor of spacetime, and <math>T_{\mu\nu}</math> is stress-energy tensor.

Einstein called <math>\Lambda</math> ''"the biggest blunder of my life"''. It turned out to be not necessary in his equation but the [[relativists]] don't know it and Einstein didn't leave any instructions about what to replace it with and that's why the [[relativists]] have still problem with this constant. I'm not credible enough even to those from my school where I'm right now doing my PhD in general realativity, to let me publish my paper ''"Huble redshift in Einstein's universe"'' demonstrating that our universe with its [[Hubble redshift]] is stationary [[Einstein's universe]] and the redshift is produced by [[time dilation]] coupled to the [[curvature of space]].

Einstein added this '''cosmological constant''' to his field equation to make the universe stationary (neither expanding nor contracting) which it works when the '''cosmological constant''' has so called Einstein value
:<math>\Lambda_E=4\pi G \rho/c^2</math>,
where <math>G</math> is Newtonian grawitational constant, <math>\rho</math> is density of space, and <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum.

[[Category: Cosmology]]
[[Category: Gravitation theory]]
[[Category: Physics]]

Talk:Hubble redshift

2011-08-23T23:09:37Z

JMairs: Forgot to sign.

Why create this page? There's already an article on redshift, and the addition of this extremely brief article seems to achieve nothing. I vote this for speedy deletion unless someone can prove that "Hubble redshift" is somehow different from the normal redshift that Hubble discovered. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Hubble redshift

2011-08-23T22:53:42Z

JMairs: Created page with "Why create this page? There's already an article on redshift, and the addition of this extremely brief article seems to achieve nothing."

Why create this page? There's already an article on redshift, and the addition of this extremely brief article seems to achieve nothing.

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T19:33:27Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T19:14:17Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T18:54:12Z

JMairs: Undo revision 903350 by DouglasA (talk)SamCoulter's version looks to be better. Please see talk page before reverting.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 68 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps).<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.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 extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# 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>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemical substances in their blood that essentially act as an anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.
# Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of [[Devils Tower]]. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# [[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>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. 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 set simultaneously.
# 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>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. Why would there be more commonality between two more distantly related primates than between two more closely related ones? Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]], which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

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

===Uncategorized===

# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.

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

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T18:53:29Z

JMairs: Undo revision 903412 by JMairs (talk)

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 70 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 2%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps).<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, [[entropy]] (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. According to [[Cornell University]] [[genetics|geneticist]] [[John C. Sanford]], not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. <ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-geneticist-rejects-darwinism-in-his-recent-book/]</ref> It seems reasonable to infer, then, that the [[End Times]] will come before or during the eventual collapse of the world's [[ecosystems]] that will come as a result of this irreversible deterioration.
# 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 extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
# The manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
# 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>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
# Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemical substances in their blood that essentially act as an anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.
# The blood of tunicates such as the sea squirt is based on the rare element [[vanadium]] instead of the abundant [[iron]] used in other vertebrates, which would have required a complete re-tooling of its entire circulatory biochemistry <ref>http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/ascidiacea.html</ref>.
# Animals exist in isolated places without any plausible motivation or means for getting there, such as on remote islands or more than 1200 feet high on top of the vertical cliffs of [[Devils Tower]]. Even humans (though large and intelligent) were unable to ascend the peak until 1893, and required specialized climbing equipment.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# [[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>
# Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. 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 set simultaneously.
# 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>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.
# [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# "[T]he loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
# Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]], which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
# '''Where are the human ancestors?''' (That is, the ones that weren't [http://www.conservapedia.com/Piltdown_Man frauds].)

===Paradoxical fossils===
# The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

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

===Uncategorized===

# No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.

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

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2011-08-23T18:04:30Z

JMairs: /* Weapon sales to Egypt */

I seem to be missing something here since there are a few points I don't understand. First how is being sworn in using his full legal name part of pushing a Muslim agenda? Second how is putting more troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (a fundamentalist Islamic government) a Muslim policy? [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Using his full legal name when chastising others for using his name reeks of an agenda different than when he campaigned (worried about labeled Muslim before victory and unconcerned using his middle name after election). More troops to Afghanistan is a good thing in my view. I included it because it has to do with dealing with our Muslim enemies, so it is on his agenda. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ok now I see were I went wrong. I was thinking from the introduction this article was going to focus on what Obama had done that could be seen as pro-Muslim and not include items that can be seen as anti-Muslim (more troops to fight an Islamic government) or that are only tangentially related to Islam (such as not using his middle name at first to try to avoid discrimination over possible Islamic ties in his heritage). Thanks for you quick response [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:37, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I have changed the opening paragraph so as not to reflect an anti or pro Muslim policy of the Administration's agenda.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:23, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I am confused as to how dispatching more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Islamist Taliban is a 'Muslim policy' exactly? What exaclty does 'Muslim policy' mean - the inference from most of this article is that President Obama's policies are in some way Islamic (such as using his middle, Arabic name)?

: I disagree that the article is painting the policies as Islamic. Alright, the name thing is kind of pushing it, but that's part of a much broader debate across this site. As it stands, the examples all seem to be in chronological order, and many of them are (in my opinion, at least) genuine departures from the previous administration's method of dealing with the Muslim world. Time will tell whether they end up helping or hindering the "Contingency Operation." For now, I've modified the wording in the introduction to further clarify the article's intent.

: And for the record, I think we should remove the point about Obama seeking to hire Muslim congressional staffers. The only story resembling this that I could find from a major news organization said that a collection of the 45 most qualified Muslim Americans had been sent to the White House for consideration as part of a joint effort between Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and The Muslim Congressional Staffers Association. A quote:
:: ''A White House aide confirmed that the administration had received the resumes, noting that it was not unusual for the White House to consider lists of job candidates suggested by constituent groups.''

:: ''"We're still very much in the middle of the [hiring] process, even when it comes to very senior government employees. These things take time, and they're all based on finding the right fit," said the aide, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly for the administration.''<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-muslims29-2009mar29,0,176096.story</ref>
: It's looks like the administration has yet to take action on this. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:43, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Create a 'Muslim agenda of the Bush Administration'=) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:49, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama takes a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan. ==

How exactly is visiting the troops fighting a war for our country part of a Muslim agenda? Did GWB reveal his own Muslim agenda when he did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did Nixon reveal his, what, "Asian agenda" with his July 1969 visit to the troops in Vietnam? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:03, 4 December 2010 (EST)
:The answer to your questions- yes yes and yes. A visit to Muslim country, where are troops are stationed, with plans to visit Karzai is notable.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:31, 4 December 2010 (EST)

: I think you also have to note the timing of this trip, and what its main purpose was. Obama went on a day when there were many important domestic issues going on (lots on the Congressional agenda, not to mention the dismal jobs report that came out). Additionally, his main purpose was to speak with Karzai, and that didn't happen only because of weather and technical difficulties. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 13:27, 4 December 2010 (EST)

== Somali Pirates ==
Lets say that Obama decided not to rescue the Captain. You could say his agenda was not to engage Muslim pirates. He order the successful release of the Captain. This means his policy or agenda toward Muslim pirates is shoot to kill. The only thing missing on this page with regards is the civilian trial and inprisonment of the remaining pirate. There is a case to be made that his agenda was to dither and that the Navy took it upon themselves to solve the crisis. Either way, there was an agenda here whether you agree.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:10, 31 January 2011 (EST)
:"'''There is a case to be made that his agenda was to dither and that the Navy took it upon themselves to solve the crisis.'''"
:The only thing Obama did in this case was to reiterate that the "troops on the ground" (so to speak) were free to act if they felt the life of the Captain was in immediate danger.

:From the page:
*Obama orders the successful rescue of American Capt. [[Richard Phillips]] from Muslim Somali pirates.

:I think this is poorly worded; Obama simply let his commanders and the men under them ''do as they saw fit,'' that the Captain lived was just a happy coincidence.

:[http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=13351436 That Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse's sentencing hasn't taken place cannot be placed at the feet of Obama just yet.]

:I'm not sure what the "either way" is about since one of the scenarios is based upon a hypothetical.

[[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 15:31, 1 February 2011 (EST)

::Here is my source for the statement "Obama never did give the order to kill the pirates, but the US Navy finally took it upon themselves to do it and rescued the captain." [http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/unlike-the-u-s-president-south-korea-has-no-problem-wasting-eight-somali-muslim-priates/] He took credit and I gave him credit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:08, 1 February 2011 (EST)

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Weapon sales to Egypt ==

Personally I don't think that allowing the sale of 125 M1-series tanks to Egypt shows a muslim agenda on Borat Osama's part at all. Egypt already has 1,130 M1A1s which they built themselves using a factory and production licence given to them by Ronald Reagan, who I don't think any of us are accusing of being a secret muslim, and Reagan also either sold Egypt, or approved the sale to Egypt by Austria, of over 1,000 M60-series tanks. Arming Egypt and breaking their old dependancy on Soviet equipment and advisers is a long-standing and perfectly sensible US policy. Supplying Egypt with US weapons also helped with the Camp David agreement, which has been a huge boost to Israel's security. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 13:59, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2011-08-23T17:59:44Z

JMairs: /* Weapon sales to Egypt */ new section

I seem to be missing something here since there are a few points I don't understand. First how is being sworn in using his full legal name part of pushing a Muslim agenda? Second how is putting more troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (a fundamentalist Islamic government) a Muslim policy? [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Using his full legal name when chastising others for using his name reeks of an agenda different than when he campaigned (worried about labeled Muslim before victory and unconcerned using his middle name after election). More troops to Afghanistan is a good thing in my view. I included it because it has to do with dealing with our Muslim enemies, so it is on his agenda. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ok now I see were I went wrong. I was thinking from the introduction this article was going to focus on what Obama had done that could be seen as pro-Muslim and not include items that can be seen as anti-Muslim (more troops to fight an Islamic government) or that are only tangentially related to Islam (such as not using his middle name at first to try to avoid discrimination over possible Islamic ties in his heritage). Thanks for you quick response [[User:WillB|WillB]] 13:37, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I have changed the opening paragraph so as not to reflect an anti or pro Muslim policy of the Administration's agenda.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:23, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I am confused as to how dispatching more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Islamist Taliban is a 'Muslim policy' exactly? What exaclty does 'Muslim policy' mean - the inference from most of this article is that President Obama's policies are in some way Islamic (such as using his middle, Arabic name)?

: I disagree that the article is painting the policies as Islamic. Alright, the name thing is kind of pushing it, but that's part of a much broader debate across this site. As it stands, the examples all seem to be in chronological order, and many of them are (in my opinion, at least) genuine departures from the previous administration's method of dealing with the Muslim world. Time will tell whether they end up helping or hindering the "Contingency Operation." For now, I've modified the wording in the introduction to further clarify the article's intent.

: And for the record, I think we should remove the point about Obama seeking to hire Muslim congressional staffers. The only story resembling this that I could find from a major news organization said that a collection of the 45 most qualified Muslim Americans had been sent to the White House for consideration as part of a joint effort between Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and The Muslim Congressional Staffers Association. A quote:
:: ''A White House aide confirmed that the administration had received the resumes, noting that it was not unusual for the White House to consider lists of job candidates suggested by constituent groups.''

:: ''"We're still very much in the middle of the [hiring] process, even when it comes to very senior government employees. These things take time, and they're all based on finding the right fit," said the aide, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly for the administration.''<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-muslims29-2009mar29,0,176096.story</ref>
: It's looks like the administration has yet to take action on this. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:43, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Create a 'Muslim agenda of the Bush Administration'=) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:49, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama takes a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan. ==

How exactly is visiting the troops fighting a war for our country part of a Muslim agenda? Did GWB reveal his own Muslim agenda when he did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did Nixon reveal his, what, "Asian agenda" with his July 1969 visit to the troops in Vietnam? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 11:03, 4 December 2010 (EST)
:The answer to your questions- yes yes and yes. A visit to Muslim country, where are troops are stationed, with plans to visit Karzai is notable.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:31, 4 December 2010 (EST)

: I think you also have to note the timing of this trip, and what its main purpose was. Obama went on a day when there were many important domestic issues going on (lots on the Congressional agenda, not to mention the dismal jobs report that came out). Additionally, his main purpose was to speak with Karzai, and that didn't happen only because of weather and technical difficulties. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 13:27, 4 December 2010 (EST)

== Somali Pirates ==
Lets say that Obama decided not to rescue the Captain. You could say his agenda was not to engage Muslim pirates. He order the successful release of the Captain. This means his policy or agenda toward Muslim pirates is shoot to kill. The only thing missing on this page with regards is the civilian trial and inprisonment of the remaining pirate. There is a case to be made that his agenda was to dither and that the Navy took it upon themselves to solve the crisis. Either way, there was an agenda here whether you agree.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:10, 31 January 2011 (EST)
:"'''There is a case to be made that his agenda was to dither and that the Navy took it upon themselves to solve the crisis.'''"
:The only thing Obama did in this case was to reiterate that the "troops on the ground" (so to speak) were free to act if they felt the life of the Captain was in immediate danger.

:From the page:
*Obama orders the successful rescue of American Capt. [[Richard Phillips]] from Muslim Somali pirates.

:I think this is poorly worded; Obama simply let his commanders and the men under them ''do as they saw fit,'' that the Captain lived was just a happy coincidence.

:[http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=13351436 That Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse's sentencing hasn't taken place cannot be placed at the feet of Obama just yet.]

:I'm not sure what the "either way" is about since one of the scenarios is based upon a hypothetical.

[[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 15:31, 1 February 2011 (EST)

::Here is my source for the statement "Obama never did give the order to kill the pirates, but the US Navy finally took it upon themselves to do it and rescued the captain." [http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/unlike-the-u-s-president-south-korea-has-no-problem-wasting-eight-somali-muslim-priates/] He took credit and I gave him credit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:08, 1 February 2011 (EST)

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Weapon sales to Egypt ==

Personally I don't think that allowing the sale of 125 M1-series tanks to Egypt shows a muslim agenda on Borat Osama's part at all. Egypt already has 1,130 M1A1s which they built themselves using a factory and production licence given to them by Ronald Reagan, who I don't think any of us are accusing of being a secret muslim, and Reagan also either sold Egypt, or approved the sale to Egypt by Austria, of over 1,000 M60-series tanks. Arming Egypt and breaking their old dependancy on Soviet equipment and advisers is a long-standing and perfectly sensible US policy. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 13:59, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2011-08-23T17:54:39Z

JMairs: /* Obama Presidency Year Three */ Bad example. President Reagan sold Egypt over 700 M60A3 tanks and the licence to build M1A1s themselves; they've built over 1,100.

[[Barack Obama]] and his administration has taken the following actions relating to ''Muslims.''

[[File:obamabow.jpg|right|thumb|200px| Barack Hussein Obama bowing to the Saudi King.]]

== Obama Presidency Year One ==

*Obama’s first interview, within days of inauguration, was with the [[Dubai]]-based Al-Arabiya Networks. In it he stressed his own Muslim ties and his hopes for a Palestinian state. His message was “U.S. is not your enemy.”

*One of Obama's first acts as president, he decided to close [[Guantanamo Bay|GITMO detention center]] and bring Muslim terrorists to [[American]] soil.

*In February, Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the [[Palestinian]] refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. In addition, he pledged to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the [[Hamas]]-controlled Gaza Strip.

*Obama sets a withdrawal date for U.S. troops in [[Iraq]] of 2010

*Obama orders additional [[U.S.]] troops to [[Afghanistan]] to fight the [[Taliban]].

*On March 19th, Obama delivered a customary speech to the Iranian people on their New Year referring to the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]] which amounted to an acceptance of the regime.

*Obama submits resolution to the U.N. Human Rights Council which would subordinate U.S. free speech rights to U.N. oversight standards. This has been a key demand by Muslims to punish others for speaking against Islam. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266 White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood, Human Events, October 4, 2010]</ref>

*Obama has lifted some sanctions on Syria and intends to meet personally with [[Bashar al-Assad]]. <ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2905 Obama administration reaches out to Syria] Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, March 18, 2009</ref>

*Obama cancels the use of the term Global [[War on Terror]] in favor of Overseas Contingency Operation, so as not to offend Muslims.

*In March, Barack Obama said he was open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the [[Taliban]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52U2EC20090331 Clinton offers olive branch to Taliban] Reuters, March 31, 2009</ref>

*March 31st, U.S. Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] said those "who abandoned [Muslim] extremism must be granted an honorable form of reconciliation." <ref>[http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/03/31/hillary-offers-olive-branch-taliban Hillary offers olive branch to Taliban] The Fox Nation, March 31, 2009</ref>

*Obama arrives in [[Turkey]] to proclaim the [[U.S.]] is not at war with Islam.

*Obama signs order to release documents from President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s White House and President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s presidential library records on the topic of [[Saudi Arabia]]. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21121.html Obama releases Reagan records] Politico, April 10, 2009</ref>

*Obama requests emergency war funds for Afghanistan and [[Iraq]].

*Obama orders the successful rescue of American Capt. [[Richard Phillips]] from Muslim Somali pirates.

*Obama nominated Dalia Mogahed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She has ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. <ref>[http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2987/pub_detail.asp Esposito Protégé Appointed To Obama Advisory Council] Family Security Matters, April 14, 2009</ref>

*April 21, Obama meets with [[Jordanian]] King Abdullah in the Oval Office.

*Obama said that despite the hate speech by [[Ahmadinejad]] at Monday's [[U.N.]] racist conference, the administration is "serious about engagement with Iran with no illusions." <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-iran-diplomacy-to-continue-despite-appalling-speech-2009-04-21.html Obama: Iran effort continues despite 'appalling' talk] TheHill.com, April 21, 2009</ref>

*The Obama administration declassifies Bush administration harsh interrogation methods used against Muslim terrorists

*Barack Obama has approved plans for the U.S. to help the [[United Arab Emirates]] become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/obama-approves-plans-uae-nuclear-power-deal/?test=latestnews Obama Approves Plans for U.S.-UAE Nuclear Power Deal] Fox News, May 20, 2009</ref>

*Obama State Department issues U.S. ambassadors abroad to invite Iranian diplomats to embassy events celebrating the July 4 U.S. Independence Day. <ref>[http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-02-voa64.cfm US Inviting Iranians to July 4 Embassy Events] Voice of America, June 2, 2009</ref>

*The Obama administration refused to help pro-democratic protesters in Iran.<ref>http://newledger.com/2009/06/say-goodbye-to-cairo-obamas-inaction-on-iran-clashes-with-his-words/</ref>

*Obama celebrates [[Ramadan]] at the White House 09/01/09

9/09 through 6/10 content needed

==Obama Presidency Year Two==
*Obama pushes for and gets a new constitution passed for [[Kenya]]. The new constitution creates Islamic courts for 12% of the population that are Muslim. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/06/obama-congratulates-kenya-for-passing-constitution-he-bankrolled-implements-sharia-in-non-muslim-country-liberalizes-abortion/#comment-263165 Obama Congratulates Kenya for Passing Constitution He Bankrolled, Implements Sharia in Non-Muslim Country, Liberalizes Abortion, WeaselZippers.us, August 6, 2010]</ref>

*Obama hosts an Iftar dinner celebrating [[Ramadan]] in the State Dining Room 09/13/2010

*Obama endorses a [[Ground Zero Mosque|victory mosque]] to be built near Ground Zero in [[New York City]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/obama-backs-mosque-near-ground-zero/ Obama Endorses Mosque Project Near Ground Zero Site, FOXNews, August 13, 2010]</ref>

*Obama allows his supporters Muslim [[Louis Farrakhan]] and The [[New Black Panthers]] to meet in New York with rogue-state leader of Iran [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]. <ref>[http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212324822.shtml Ahmadinejad, Farrakhan In Sit-Down, Post Chronicle, September 28, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's [[Department of Justice]] asks for terror charges to be dropped against Islamic terrorist detainee, brother-in-Law of [[Osama Bin Laden]]'s bodyguard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30/feds-want-drop-charges-man-brother-law-usama-bin-ladens-bodyguard/ Feds Ask Terror Charges Be Dropped Against Brother-in-Law of Bin Laden's Bodyguard, FOXNews, September 30, 2010]</ref>

*White House appointee Dalia Mogahed attends The Organization of the Islamic Conference in Chicago. Also in attendance, Siraj Wahhaj an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266 White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood, Human Events, October 4, 2010]</ref>

*A Somali-born Muslim and a naturalized Canadian citizen who trained at an [[Al Qaeda]] camp and attended lectures by [[Osama bin Laden]] has been deported to Canada. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/08/feds-deport-al-qaeda-associate-to-canada/#ixzz11nZxEaqB Feds Deport Al Qaeda Associate To Canada, FOXNews, October 8, 2010]</ref>

*Obama announces a visit to Muslim [[Indonesia]] in early November.

*Obama administration invites diplomats from Iran to [[NATO]] talks regarding Afghanistan. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/iranian-weapon-shipment-afghan-taliban-raises-alarm/ Iranian Weapon Shipment to Afghan Taliban Raises Alarm, FOXNews, October 19, 2010]</ref>

*Obama administration announces a multibillion-dollar sale of fighter jets and military helicopters to Saudi Arabia. <ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5izOFXzR8BOYgLwf2lxo7i1d-8IhQ?docId=4883358 AP sources: US to notify Congress Wednesday of multibillion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia, AP, October 20, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's Homeland Security Director [[Janet Napolitano]] appoints Muslim Mohamed Elibiary to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. <ref>[http://bigpeace.com/ipt/2010/10/23/new-dept-of-homeland-security-advisor-is-an-islamist/ New Dept. of Homeland Security Advisor is an Islamist, BigPeace.com, October 23, 2010]</ref>

*In a letter to Congress, Obama announced that he will allow an additional 80,000 immigrants – - mostly from Islamic countries – - to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011. <ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29096 Obama authorizes additional 80,000 “refugees” to entry country, Canada Free Press, October 22, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's State Department offers Iran's leader Ahmadinejad a happy birthday. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palin-slams-u-s-state-department-for-ahmadinejad-birthday-wish/ PALIN SLAMS U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT FOR AHMADINEJAD BIRTHDAY WISH, TheBlaze, October 29, 2010]</ref>

*The Obama's paid visit to Indonesia's largest mosque, the Istiqlal Mosque. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/09/obama-first-lady-visit-indonesias-largest-mosque/ Obama, first lady visit Indonesia’s largest mosque, The Daily Caller, November 9, 2010]</ref>

*Obama announces an additional year of sanctions on Iran, first imposed by [[Jimmy Carter]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a15c993418c0f7af374e67ccc15a8fb.81&show_article=1 Obama extends freeze on Iranian assets, Breitbart.com, November 10, 2010]</ref>

*Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announces an additional $150 million to boost the Palestinian Authority. <ref>[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT014236.htm U.S. gives $150 mln to Palestinian Authority, Thompson-Reuters, November 10, 2010]</reF>

*Obama defends civilian trial for Muslim terrorists after Ahmed Ghailani was convicted on one count, while 280 charges were dropped. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/18/white-house-undeterred-after-ghailani-terror-case-verdict/ White House undeterred after Ghailani terror case verdict, The Daily Caller, November 18, 2010]</ref>

*Obama takes a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan. A meeting with President Karzai was cancelled due to weather.

*Obama's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis B. Susman visited an extremist mosque in London and invited Muslim youths to travel to the United States by enrolling in the U.S. embassy's cultural and interfaith program. <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/us-ambassador-t.html US Ambassador to UK Praises Terror-Tied Mosque, Offers Taxpayer Money, Moonbattery.com, December 3, 2010]</ref>

*Obama wins legal fight authorizing a targeted assassination of [[Anwar Al-Awlaki]], a Muslim American cleric and terror agent of [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-approves-obama-administrations-authority-targeted-assassination-al/story?id=12333259 Judge Throws Out Challenge to Targeted Assassination, ABC News, December 7, 2010]</ref>

*The [[Obama Administration]], by means of the Treasury Department, quietly amended a counterterrorism sanction so that accused Muslim [[terrorist]]s can pay for their defense with assets frozen by the government. <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/dec/u-s-lets-terrorists-use-frozen-assets-hire-attorneys U.S. Lets Terrorists Use Frozen Assets To Hire Attorneys, Judicial Watch, December 12, 2010]</ref>

*[[Eric Holder]] addresses Muslim Advocates in San Fransisco to reiterate his resolve to prosecute hate crimes while standing behind the methods used in anti-terrorism cases. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/holder-reassures-muslims-of-dojs-anti-bias-focus/ HOLDER REASSURES MUSLIMS OF DOJ’S ANTI-BIAS FOCUS, TheBlaze, December 11. 2010]</ref>

*Once again, Barack Obama calls for reconciliation with those [[Taliban]] who break ties with al Qaeda. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/once-again-obama-extends-hand-to-taliban-once-again-taliban-vows-to-continue-to-fight/ Once Again, Obama Extends Hand to Taliban… Once Again, Taliban Vows to Continue to Fight, RIGHTNETWORK, December 17, 2010]</ref>

*Obama calls Saudi King Abdullah on December 26th to wish him well as he recovers from two recent back surgeries. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ObamaAbdullah/2010/12/26/id/381045 Obama Extends Well Wishes to Saudi King, NewsMax, December 26, 2010]</ref>

*Homeland Security director [[Janet Napolitano]] arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan to discuss international and regional security.

*In a "major concession to the Syrian regime," Obama uses a recess appointment to select Robert Ford as the new ambassador to [[Syria]]. <ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/republicans_denounce_obama_ove.html Republicans denounce Obama over his 'recess appointments', Cleveland.com, December 30, 2010]</ref>

==Obama Presidency Year Three==
*Vice President [[Joe Biden]] will visit [[Pakistan]] in January and announce the Obama administration plans to increase financial aid. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/07/report-increase-help-pakistan/ Report: US to increase help for Pakistan, Fox News, January 7, 2011]</ref>
*Algerian national who was held at [[Guantanamo]] and cleared of terror suspicions by a US judge more than a year ago was repatriated January 6th. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5283ba0c8f02c1d6912c2e65666fa351.bb1&show_article=1 Guantanamo detainee sent home against his will, Breitbart, January 6, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton makes a surprise visit to [[Yemen]] and meets with President Saleh. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0111/Why-Hillary-Clinton-made-a-surprise-stop-in-Yemen Why Hillary Clinton made a surprise stop in Yemen, Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2011]</ref>
*Surprise, [[Joe Biden]] makes his seventh trip to Iraq since taking office. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47513.html Biden makes surprise visit to Iraq, Politico, January 12, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department upgraded the PLO status in [[Washington, D.C.]] from a representative office to a general delegation. For the first time ever, the [[Palestinian]]s fly their flag in Washington DC. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/01/18/obama-regime-allows-palestinians-to-fly-their-flag-for-first-time-in-washington-dc/ Obama Regime Allows Palestinians to Fly Their Flag For First Time in Washington DC…, Weasel Zippers, January 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama applauded "the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people" in their revolt against the government. <ref>[http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54137 Obama Applauds People, Urges Calm, IPS News, January 14, 2011]</ref>
*Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is urging the Egyptian government not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications as deadly riots are held against the government. <ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110126hillary_rodham_clinton_calls_for_calm_restraint_in_egypt/srvc=home&position=recent Hillary Rodham Clinton calls for calm, restraint in Egypt, Boston Herald, January 26, 2011]</ref>
*Obama announces at the [[State of the Union]] ''"that American Muslims are a part of our American family."''
*Barack speaks to Mubarak, tells him to allow peaceful protests and turn the internet back on in Egypt.
*[[Robert Gibbs]] said Egypt's new government will have to include a "whole host of important non-secular actors", minus the obfuscation- religious parties. <ref>[http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=593895 Obama Stands by Muslim Brotherhood Endorsement, Lucianne.com, February 2, 2011]</ref>
*February 4th, In a huge gamble affecting the peace process, our relations with [[Israel]], the stability of ally Egypt- Obama is pressuring Mubarak to step aside now. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/04/obama-calls-attacks-egypt-unacceptable-urges-transition-begin/ Obama Calls for Egypt Transition to Begin Now, Urges Mubarak to Make 'Right Decision, Fox News, February 4, 2011]</ref>
*February 5th, Obama's special envoy for Egypt, Frank Wisner says President Mubarak must stay for now. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/egypt-president-mubarak-must-stay-us-envoy-says.html EGYPT: President Mubarak must stay for now, U.S. envoy says, LA Times, February 5, 2011]</ref>
*February 5th, Saturday evening the Obama Administration said Mubarak should step aside. <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html Obama Administration Distances Self From Own Envoy to Mubarak, ABC News, February 5, 2011]</ref>
*February 6th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mubarak must stay in power. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07diplo.html?_r=1 Warning Against Hasty Exit for Mubarak, NY Times, February 6, 2011]</ref>
*Bill O’Reilly interviews Obama and asks him if the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] is a threat to the [[U.S.]], Obama addressed the answer without a yes or no but with [[liberal obfuscation]] instead. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/06/oreilly-obama-interview-shows-obama-changed-course/ O'Reilly Obama Interview Shows That President Still Hasn't Changed Course, Fox News, February 6, 2011 ]</ref>
*Washington bureaucrats mandate the Mansfield Texas school district teach Arabic "language of the future," and involves embedding Arabic culture in all facets of school activities. This was made possible by a $1.3 million dollar Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) federal grant. <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1290896 Flap over feds funding Arabic culture curriculum, One News Now, February 8, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton gave tacit approval to the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in Egyptian politics. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261069</ref>
*Obama's State Department has begun sending [[Twitter]] messages in Arabic. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/09/state-department-begins-tweeting-in-arabic/ State Department begins tweeting in Arabic, The Daily Caller, february 9, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's National Intelligence director James Clapper said Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization even though their stated goal is an [[Islamic]] state and the [[CIA]] lists them as a religious organization. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/muslim-brotherhood-a-secular-organization-says-clapper/ Muslim Brotherhood a ’secular’ organization says Clapper, Daily Caller, February 10, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration, which did not openly back Iranian protesters in 2009, now tells Iran to allow protests. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/13/pressures-iran-allow-protests-prince-says-tehran-moment-coming/ U.S. Pressures Iran to Allow Protests, Former Prince Says 'Tehran Moment' Coming, Fox News, February 13, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department began sending Twitter messages in [[Farsi]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/13/starts-farsi-twitter-account-aimed-iranians/ State Department began sending Twitter messages in Farsi, Fox News, February 13, 2011]</ref>
*Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem praises [[Al-Jazeera]] and pleads for U.S. cable providers to carry the network. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-administration-official-urges-cable-providers-to-carry-al-jazeera/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL URGES CABLE PROVIDERS TO CARRY AL-JAZEERA, The Blaze, February 14, 2011]</ref>
*Senator [[John Kerry]] travels to [[Pakistan]] to ease tensions over a U.S. government official, Raymond Davis, suspected of killing two Pakistani men in self-defense. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/14/sen-john-kerry-heads-to-pakistan-to-calm-diplomatic-tensions/ Sen. John Kerry heads to Pakistan to calm diplomatic tensions, Daily Caller, February 14, 2011]</ref>
*Interfering in [[France]]'s domestic policy, the Obama State Department sets up a Muslim Think Tank in [[Paris]]. <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110217/wl_csm/364156_1 In France, US advocacy for Muslim rights raises more than a few hackles, Yahoo news, February 17, 2011]</ref>
*February 18th, the U.S. vetoes [[U.N.]] resolution supported by Muslim countries condemning Israeli settlement construction. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0218/If-Obama-opposes-Israeli-settlement-activity-why-did-US-veto-UN-vote If Obama opposes Israeli settlement activity, why did US veto UN vote?, Christian Science Monitor, February 18, 2011]</ref>
*February 18th, Secretary of State Clinton condemns [[Israel]] settlement construction to appease Muslims. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-israeli-settlements-illegitimate/story?id=12952834 Hillary Clinton: Israeli Settlements 'Illegitimate', ABC News, February 18, 2011]</ref>
*A [[White House]] official said the administration is seeking clarification from senior [[Libya | Libyan]] officials about their intentions regarding civil unrest. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/state-department-orders-diplomats-family-members-libya/ State Department Orders Diplomats' Family Members Out of Libya, Fox News, February 21, 2011]</ref>
*White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the president’s [9 day] silence on Libya thus far was due to a “scheduling issue.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/obama-breaks-silence-on-libya-protests/#ixzz1Ew4t9jYr Obama breaks silence on Libya protests, The Daily Caller, February 23, 2011]</ref>
*Obama speaking out against the Libyan dictator for the first time since the uprising began, "Leave Libya now." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/obama-qaddafi-needs-leave/ Obama: Qaddafi Needs to Leave Now, Fox News, February 26, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton praises [[Islamic]] Al-Jazeera as "real news", [[U.S.]] news as "not particularly informative to us." <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/03/hillary-clinton-al-jazeera-offers-real-news/ Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera offers ‘real new, The Daily Caller, March 3, 2011]</ref>
*Despite the evidence of an Islamic gunman in [[Germany]] killing two U.S. airmen, Obama and his administration refuse to call the attack terrorism. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/german-gunmans-pistol-jammed-saving-u-s-airman/ GERMAN GUNMAN’S PISTOL JAMMED, SAVING U.S. AIRMAN, The Blaze, March 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department is using tax dollars to refurbish mosques overseas as a way to improve relations. Some extremist mosques are getting U.S. funded internet service to spread Islam.<ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/hundreds-of-mil.html Hundreds of $Millions of US Taxpayer Money Spent to Refurbish Foreign Mosques, Moonbattery, March 5, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton will meet with Libyan opposition leaders during a visit to the Middle East. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-clinton-plans-meet-libyan-opposi Hillary Clinton Plans to Meet With Libyan Opposition Leaders; Going to Egypt Next Week, CNS News, 10 March, 2011]. </ref>
*The State Department is sending a senior official to attend a March 15 meeting hosted by the National Iranian-American Council. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/14/state-department-senior-official-to-at tend-conference-of-org-accused-of-being-advocate-for-iranian-theocracy/ State Department senior official to attend conference of org accused of being advocate for Iranian theocracy, Daily Caller, March 14, 2011 ]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton travels to Egypt for talks with the new [[government]]. <ref>March 15, 2011</ref>
*[[White House]] officials have applauded advocacy efforts by the [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]], even though top [[FBI]] managers refuse to meet its leaders. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/18/hamas-associated-cair-applauded-by-white-house/#ixzz1Gz69NHXD Hamas-associated CAIR applauded by White House, The Daily Caller, March 18, 2011]</ref>
*The U.N. authorizes a no fly zone for Libya. March 19, Obama commits America to lead the no-fly zone and is expected to hand off the lead to [[NATO]]. Obama bypasses congress from involvement.
*Obama's Justice Department sues on behalf of a Muslim teachers fired for taking three weeks time off for [[Hajj]]. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-sues-on-behalf-of-muslim-teacher-triggering-debate/2010/07/28/ABfSPtEB_story.html Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate, WaPo, March 22, 2011]</ref>
*Obama to address the [[American]] people March 28 regarding the bombing of Libya, 9 days after launching [[Operation Odyssey Dawn]].
*Obama orders covert [[U.S.]] government support for rebel forces in Libya. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330 Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels, Reuters, March 30, 2011]</ref>
*[[Secretary of State]] Hillary Clinton calls Syrian President [[Bashar al-Assad]] "a reformer," says U.S. will not intervene in Syria's deadly uprising. <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html Clinton Says U.S. Won't Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight, Bloomberg, March 28, 2011]</ref>
*[[Eric Holder]] changes Islamic terrorist trials from civilian court to military tribunal. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/about-face-obama-admin-will-prosecute-911-plotters-in-military-court/ ABOUT-FACE: OBAMA ADMIN. WILL PROSECUTE 9/11 PLOTTERS IN MILITARY COURT, The Blaze, April 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama administration envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and advisor on Islamic "affairs", Rashad Hussain "When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem." <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/obama_envoy_islam_is_the_solut.html Obama envoy: Islam is the Solution not the Problem, American Thinker, April 6, 2011]</ref>
*Defense Secretary [[Robert Gates]] travels to the [[Middle East]] for the third time in a month to repair relations with Saudi Arabia after Obama pushed for Mubarak's replacement against the wishes of the Saudi King. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/after-upsetting-saudis-obama-sends-defen After Upsetting Saudis, Obama Sends Defense Secretary Gates to Discuss Arab Upheaval With Saudi King, CNSNews, April 6, 2011]</ref>
*8th Annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum will feature Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as host of the three-day event in D.C. <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/apr/clinton-hosts-islamic-world-forum-obama Clinton Hosts Islamic World Forum For Obama In D.C., Judicial Watch, April 11, 2011]</ref>
*Syria opposition groups have asked for Obama personally to condemn the Assad regime, he will not. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/14/syrian-protesters-get-muted-response-from-us/ White House rebuffs Syrian opposition, Washington Times, April 14, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department’s deputy assistant secretary Dana Shell Smith talks about Al-Jazeera news channel "This administration has empowered those of us who actually do the communicating to be in a close relationship with Al-Jazeera." <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53339.html#ixzz1JwKNN7tT Al-Jazeera has fans in Obama W.H., Politico, April 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama heaps the praises of the Al-Jazeera as the emir of [[Qatar]] who owns the news channel visited the [[White House]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/17/obama-admin-heaps-praise-on-al-jazeera-theyre-a-really-important-media-entity-we-have-a-really-great-relationship-with-them/ Obama Admin Heaps Praise on Al-Jazeera, Weasel Zippers, April 17, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's Department of Justice decided not to prosecute [[CAIR]], its co-founder Omar Ahmad, and others of the Holy Land Foundation case regarding terror financing of [[Hamas]]. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-source-gov%E2%80%99t-muslim-outreach-jeopardized-active-terror-investigations/ DOJ Source: Gov’t Muslim ‘Outreach’ Jeopardized Active Terror Investigations, Pajamas Media, April 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama approves $25 million in non-lethal aid to rebels in Libya. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42680111 US to give Libyan rebels non-lethal aid, MSNBC, April 20, 2011]</ref>
*In March, Barack Obama issued a Muslim [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/20/president-obama-s-nowruz-message Nowruz message] and also released a version in Arabic. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/obama-white-house-releases-persian-nowruz-message-muslim-ramadan-message-skips-easter/ Change!… Obama White House Releases Nowruz Message, Muslim Ramadan Message, Muslim Hajj Message, Muslim Eid-ul-Fitr Message… Skips Easter, Gateway Pundit, April 25, 2011]</ref>
*Obama orders the U.S. military to take out [[Osama Bin Laden]], claims victory. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/01/obama_at_my_direction_us_carried_out_operation_against_bin_laden.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dbe9ac88f6970ec%2C0 Obama: "At My Direction" U.S. Carried Out Operation Against Bin Laden, RealClearPolitics, May 1, 2011]</ref>
*White House to <s>delay,</s> <ref>[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/white-house-to-delay-the-release-of-gruesome-bin-laden-death-photos-due-to-muslim-sensitivities.html White House to delay the release of "gruesome" bin Laden death photos due to Muslim "sensitivities", JihadWatch, May 3, 2011]</ref> refuse to release <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20059739-503544.html Obama: I won't release bin Laden death photos - Political Hotsheet, CBS News, May 4, 2011]</ref> [[Osama bin Laden | OBL]] death photos due to Muslim "sensitivities."
*Hillary Clinton: U.S. trying to free up $3 Billion in Libyan assets to fund rebels. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05/clinton-trying-free-billions-libyan-assets-help-rebels/#ixzz1LW3SZaiz Hillary Clinton: U.S. trying to free up $3 Billion in Libyan assets to fund rebel, Fox News, May 5, 2011]</ref>
*May 19th Obama gives a speech telling Israeli to pull back to 1967 borders for the creation of a Palestinian state.
*Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launches ‘Muslim Civilization’ science exhibition in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-clinton-launches-muslim-civilization-science-exhibition-122602353.html Hillary Clinton launches ‘Muslim Civilization’ science exhibit, PRNewswire, May 25, 2011]</ref>
*The USA and the Group of Eight leaders approve $40 billion in aid to Arab uprising countries.
*New national rules of engagement for federal raids on Muslim arrest warrants, wait for [[Mosque]] service to complete before arresting. <ref>[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/agents-followed-new-politically-correct-rules-when-arresting-florida-imam-accused-of-funding-taliban.html Agents followed new politically correct rules when arresting Florida imam accused of funding Taliban, JihadWatch.org, May 15, 2011]</ref>
*Obama administration condemns Syria for shuttering Internet but does little publicly to condemn the bloodshed by the Assad regime on the Syrian people. <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/164769-obama-administration-condemns-syrian-regime-for-shuttering-internet Obama administration condemns Syria for shuttering Internet, The Hill, June 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama backed Libyan rebels with ties to [[Al Qaeda]].
*Obama violates War Powers Act, argues that US military activity in the [[NATO]]-led air war over Libya does not amount to "hostilities." [http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/06/18/barack-obama-ignored-the-advice-of-two-justice-department-lawyers-on-libya/]
*The Obama administration is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a “limited” effort to build ties in Egypt. No extension to Coptic Christians offered. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/clinton-admits-we-are-now-reaching-out-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/ CLINTON ADMITS WE ARE NOW REACHING OUT TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, The Blaze, June 30, 2011]</ref>
*Obama orders Somali terror suspect to be tried in U.S. civilian courts with all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens. <ref>[http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/169835-mcconnell-slams-obama-decision-to-grant-terror-suspect-civil-court-trial McConnell slams decision to grant terror suspect civilian trial, The Hill, July 6, 2011]</ref>
*A spokesperson of the U.S. State Department condemned reported plans by Iran to execute an Iranian pastor if he does not abandon his faith in [[Christ]]. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/809/043/U.S._Condemns_Iran_For_Threatening_To_Execute_Pastor.html U.S. Condemns Iran For Threatening To Execute Pastor, Before Its News, July 12, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration defended [[U.S.]] aid to the Palestinian Authority despite its alliance with terrorist group [[Hamas]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/13/obama-admin-defends-u-s-aid-to-the-palestinians-after-house-passes-resolution-calling-for-suspension/#comment-230040 Obama Admin Defends U.S. Aid To The Palestinians After House Passes Resolution Calling For Suspension, Weasel Zippers, July 13, 2011]</ref>
*The United States will formally recognize the top opposition group in Libya as that nation’s government. <ref>[http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/171697-clinton-us-recognizes-top-libyan-rebel-group-as-legit-government Clinton: U.S. will recognize top Libyan rebel group as country’s government, The Hill, July 15, 2011]</ref>
*Obama tells Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and announces a new set of sanctions. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/18/sources-us-call-for-assad-departure-imminent/?test=latestnews Obama Calls on Assad to Step Down, Imposes New Sanctions, Fox News, August 18, 2011]</ref>
*Various reports show the State Department trying to get the Muslim Brotherhood to replace Assad, just like in Egypt. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274969/annals-arab-spring-obama-administration-backs-muslim-brotherhood-syria-andrew-c-mccart# Annals of the Arab Spring: Obama Administration Backs Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, NRO, August 18, 2011]</ref>

===References===
{{Reflist|3}}
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2011-08-23T17:50:05Z

JMairs: /* Obama Presidency Year Three */ EVERYONE is calling for a peaceful transition; it's hardly an example of a muslim agenda. Is Obama supposed to call for a violent transition dripping with genocide?

[[Barack Obama]] and his administration has taken the following actions relating to ''Muslims.''

[[File:obamabow.jpg|right|thumb|200px| Barack Hussein Obama bowing to the Saudi King.]]

== Obama Presidency Year One ==

*Obama’s first interview, within days of inauguration, was with the [[Dubai]]-based Al-Arabiya Networks. In it he stressed his own Muslim ties and his hopes for a Palestinian state. His message was “U.S. is not your enemy.”

*One of Obama's first acts as president, he decided to close [[Guantanamo Bay|GITMO detention center]] and bring Muslim terrorists to [[American]] soil.

*In February, Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the [[Palestinian]] refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. In addition, he pledged to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the [[Hamas]]-controlled Gaza Strip.

*Obama sets a withdrawal date for U.S. troops in [[Iraq]] of 2010

*Obama orders additional [[U.S.]] troops to [[Afghanistan]] to fight the [[Taliban]].

*On March 19th, Obama delivered a customary speech to the Iranian people on their New Year referring to the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]] which amounted to an acceptance of the regime.

*Obama submits resolution to the U.N. Human Rights Council which would subordinate U.S. free speech rights to U.N. oversight standards. This has been a key demand by Muslims to punish others for speaking against Islam. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266 White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood, Human Events, October 4, 2010]</ref>

*Obama has lifted some sanctions on Syria and intends to meet personally with [[Bashar al-Assad]]. <ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2905 Obama administration reaches out to Syria] Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, March 18, 2009</ref>

*Obama cancels the use of the term Global [[War on Terror]] in favor of Overseas Contingency Operation, so as not to offend Muslims.

*In March, Barack Obama said he was open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the [[Taliban]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52U2EC20090331 Clinton offers olive branch to Taliban] Reuters, March 31, 2009</ref>

*March 31st, U.S. Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] said those "who abandoned [Muslim] extremism must be granted an honorable form of reconciliation." <ref>[http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/03/31/hillary-offers-olive-branch-taliban Hillary offers olive branch to Taliban] The Fox Nation, March 31, 2009</ref>

*Obama arrives in [[Turkey]] to proclaim the [[U.S.]] is not at war with Islam.

*Obama signs order to release documents from President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s White House and President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s presidential library records on the topic of [[Saudi Arabia]]. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21121.html Obama releases Reagan records] Politico, April 10, 2009</ref>

*Obama requests emergency war funds for Afghanistan and [[Iraq]].

*Obama orders the successful rescue of American Capt. [[Richard Phillips]] from Muslim Somali pirates.

*Obama nominated Dalia Mogahed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She has ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. <ref>[http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2987/pub_detail.asp Esposito Protégé Appointed To Obama Advisory Council] Family Security Matters, April 14, 2009</ref>

*April 21, Obama meets with [[Jordanian]] King Abdullah in the Oval Office.

*Obama said that despite the hate speech by [[Ahmadinejad]] at Monday's [[U.N.]] racist conference, the administration is "serious about engagement with Iran with no illusions." <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-iran-diplomacy-to-continue-despite-appalling-speech-2009-04-21.html Obama: Iran effort continues despite 'appalling' talk] TheHill.com, April 21, 2009</ref>

*The Obama administration declassifies Bush administration harsh interrogation methods used against Muslim terrorists

*Barack Obama has approved plans for the U.S. to help the [[United Arab Emirates]] become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/obama-approves-plans-uae-nuclear-power-deal/?test=latestnews Obama Approves Plans for U.S.-UAE Nuclear Power Deal] Fox News, May 20, 2009</ref>

*Obama State Department issues U.S. ambassadors abroad to invite Iranian diplomats to embassy events celebrating the July 4 U.S. Independence Day. <ref>[http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-02-voa64.cfm US Inviting Iranians to July 4 Embassy Events] Voice of America, June 2, 2009</ref>

*The Obama administration refused to help pro-democratic protesters in Iran.<ref>http://newledger.com/2009/06/say-goodbye-to-cairo-obamas-inaction-on-iran-clashes-with-his-words/</ref>

*Obama celebrates [[Ramadan]] at the White House 09/01/09

9/09 through 6/10 content needed

==Obama Presidency Year Two==
*Obama pushes for and gets a new constitution passed for [[Kenya]]. The new constitution creates Islamic courts for 12% of the population that are Muslim. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/06/obama-congratulates-kenya-for-passing-constitution-he-bankrolled-implements-sharia-in-non-muslim-country-liberalizes-abortion/#comment-263165 Obama Congratulates Kenya for Passing Constitution He Bankrolled, Implements Sharia in Non-Muslim Country, Liberalizes Abortion, WeaselZippers.us, August 6, 2010]</ref>

*Obama hosts an Iftar dinner celebrating [[Ramadan]] in the State Dining Room 09/13/2010

*Obama endorses a [[Ground Zero Mosque|victory mosque]] to be built near Ground Zero in [[New York City]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/obama-backs-mosque-near-ground-zero/ Obama Endorses Mosque Project Near Ground Zero Site, FOXNews, August 13, 2010]</ref>

*Obama allows his supporters Muslim [[Louis Farrakhan]] and The [[New Black Panthers]] to meet in New York with rogue-state leader of Iran [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]. <ref>[http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212324822.shtml Ahmadinejad, Farrakhan In Sit-Down, Post Chronicle, September 28, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's [[Department of Justice]] asks for terror charges to be dropped against Islamic terrorist detainee, brother-in-Law of [[Osama Bin Laden]]'s bodyguard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30/feds-want-drop-charges-man-brother-law-usama-bin-ladens-bodyguard/ Feds Ask Terror Charges Be Dropped Against Brother-in-Law of Bin Laden's Bodyguard, FOXNews, September 30, 2010]</ref>

*White House appointee Dalia Mogahed attends The Organization of the Islamic Conference in Chicago. Also in attendance, Siraj Wahhaj an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266 White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood, Human Events, October 4, 2010]</ref>

*A Somali-born Muslim and a naturalized Canadian citizen who trained at an [[Al Qaeda]] camp and attended lectures by [[Osama bin Laden]] has been deported to Canada. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/08/feds-deport-al-qaeda-associate-to-canada/#ixzz11nZxEaqB Feds Deport Al Qaeda Associate To Canada, FOXNews, October 8, 2010]</ref>

*Obama announces a visit to Muslim [[Indonesia]] in early November.

*Obama administration invites diplomats from Iran to [[NATO]] talks regarding Afghanistan. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/iranian-weapon-shipment-afghan-taliban-raises-alarm/ Iranian Weapon Shipment to Afghan Taliban Raises Alarm, FOXNews, October 19, 2010]</ref>

*Obama administration announces a multibillion-dollar sale of fighter jets and military helicopters to Saudi Arabia. <ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5izOFXzR8BOYgLwf2lxo7i1d-8IhQ?docId=4883358 AP sources: US to notify Congress Wednesday of multibillion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia, AP, October 20, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's Homeland Security Director [[Janet Napolitano]] appoints Muslim Mohamed Elibiary to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. <ref>[http://bigpeace.com/ipt/2010/10/23/new-dept-of-homeland-security-advisor-is-an-islamist/ New Dept. of Homeland Security Advisor is an Islamist, BigPeace.com, October 23, 2010]</ref>

*In a letter to Congress, Obama announced that he will allow an additional 80,000 immigrants – - mostly from Islamic countries – - to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011. <ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29096 Obama authorizes additional 80,000 “refugees” to entry country, Canada Free Press, October 22, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's State Department offers Iran's leader Ahmadinejad a happy birthday. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palin-slams-u-s-state-department-for-ahmadinejad-birthday-wish/ PALIN SLAMS U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT FOR AHMADINEJAD BIRTHDAY WISH, TheBlaze, October 29, 2010]</ref>

*The Obama's paid visit to Indonesia's largest mosque, the Istiqlal Mosque. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/09/obama-first-lady-visit-indonesias-largest-mosque/ Obama, first lady visit Indonesia’s largest mosque, The Daily Caller, November 9, 2010]</ref>

*Obama announces an additional year of sanctions on Iran, first imposed by [[Jimmy Carter]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a15c993418c0f7af374e67ccc15a8fb.81&show_article=1 Obama extends freeze on Iranian assets, Breitbart.com, November 10, 2010]</ref>

*Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announces an additional $150 million to boost the Palestinian Authority. <ref>[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT014236.htm U.S. gives $150 mln to Palestinian Authority, Thompson-Reuters, November 10, 2010]</reF>

*Obama defends civilian trial for Muslim terrorists after Ahmed Ghailani was convicted on one count, while 280 charges were dropped. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/18/white-house-undeterred-after-ghailani-terror-case-verdict/ White House undeterred after Ghailani terror case verdict, The Daily Caller, November 18, 2010]</ref>

*Obama takes a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan. A meeting with President Karzai was cancelled due to weather.

*Obama's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis B. Susman visited an extremist mosque in London and invited Muslim youths to travel to the United States by enrolling in the U.S. embassy's cultural and interfaith program. <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/us-ambassador-t.html US Ambassador to UK Praises Terror-Tied Mosque, Offers Taxpayer Money, Moonbattery.com, December 3, 2010]</ref>

*Obama wins legal fight authorizing a targeted assassination of [[Anwar Al-Awlaki]], a Muslim American cleric and terror agent of [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-approves-obama-administrations-authority-targeted-assassination-al/story?id=12333259 Judge Throws Out Challenge to Targeted Assassination, ABC News, December 7, 2010]</ref>

*The [[Obama Administration]], by means of the Treasury Department, quietly amended a counterterrorism sanction so that accused Muslim [[terrorist]]s can pay for their defense with assets frozen by the government. <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/dec/u-s-lets-terrorists-use-frozen-assets-hire-attorneys U.S. Lets Terrorists Use Frozen Assets To Hire Attorneys, Judicial Watch, December 12, 2010]</ref>

*[[Eric Holder]] addresses Muslim Advocates in San Fransisco to reiterate his resolve to prosecute hate crimes while standing behind the methods used in anti-terrorism cases. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/holder-reassures-muslims-of-dojs-anti-bias-focus/ HOLDER REASSURES MUSLIMS OF DOJ’S ANTI-BIAS FOCUS, TheBlaze, December 11. 2010]</ref>

*Once again, Barack Obama calls for reconciliation with those [[Taliban]] who break ties with al Qaeda. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/once-again-obama-extends-hand-to-taliban-once-again-taliban-vows-to-continue-to-fight/ Once Again, Obama Extends Hand to Taliban… Once Again, Taliban Vows to Continue to Fight, RIGHTNETWORK, December 17, 2010]</ref>

*Obama calls Saudi King Abdullah on December 26th to wish him well as he recovers from two recent back surgeries. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ObamaAbdullah/2010/12/26/id/381045 Obama Extends Well Wishes to Saudi King, NewsMax, December 26, 2010]</ref>

*Homeland Security director [[Janet Napolitano]] arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan to discuss international and regional security.

*In a "major concession to the Syrian regime," Obama uses a recess appointment to select Robert Ford as the new ambassador to [[Syria]]. <ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/republicans_denounce_obama_ove.html Republicans denounce Obama over his 'recess appointments', Cleveland.com, December 30, 2010]</ref>

==Obama Presidency Year Three==
*Vice President [[Joe Biden]] will visit [[Pakistan]] in January and announce the Obama administration plans to increase financial aid. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/07/report-increase-help-pakistan/ Report: US to increase help for Pakistan, Fox News, January 7, 2011]</ref>
*Algerian national who was held at [[Guantanamo]] and cleared of terror suspicions by a US judge more than a year ago was repatriated January 6th. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5283ba0c8f02c1d6912c2e65666fa351.bb1&show_article=1 Guantanamo detainee sent home against his will, Breitbart, January 6, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton makes a surprise visit to [[Yemen]] and meets with President Saleh. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0111/Why-Hillary-Clinton-made-a-surprise-stop-in-Yemen Why Hillary Clinton made a surprise stop in Yemen, Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2011]</ref>
*Surprise, [[Joe Biden]] makes his seventh trip to Iraq since taking office. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47513.html Biden makes surprise visit to Iraq, Politico, January 12, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department upgraded the PLO status in [[Washington, D.C.]] from a representative office to a general delegation. For the first time ever, the [[Palestinian]]s fly their flag in Washington DC. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/01/18/obama-regime-allows-palestinians-to-fly-their-flag-for-first-time-in-washington-dc/ Obama Regime Allows Palestinians to Fly Their Flag For First Time in Washington DC…, Weasel Zippers, January 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama applauded "the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people" in their revolt against the government. <ref>[http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54137 Obama Applauds People, Urges Calm, IPS News, January 14, 2011]</ref>
*Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is urging the Egyptian government not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications as deadly riots are held against the government. <ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110126hillary_rodham_clinton_calls_for_calm_restraint_in_egypt/srvc=home&position=recent Hillary Rodham Clinton calls for calm, restraint in Egypt, Boston Herald, January 26, 2011]</ref>
*Obama announces at the [[State of the Union]] ''"that American Muslims are a part of our American family."''
*Barack speaks to Mubarak, tells him to allow peaceful protests and turn the internet back on in Egypt.
*[[Robert Gibbs]] said Egypt's new government will have to include a "whole host of important non-secular actors", minus the obfuscation- religious parties. <ref>[http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=593895 Obama Stands by Muslim Brotherhood Endorsement, Lucianne.com, February 2, 2011]</ref>
*February 4th, In a huge gamble affecting the peace process, our relations with [[Israel]], the stability of ally Egypt- Obama is pressuring Mubarak to step aside now. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/04/obama-calls-attacks-egypt-unacceptable-urges-transition-begin/ Obama Calls for Egypt Transition to Begin Now, Urges Mubarak to Make 'Right Decision, Fox News, February 4, 2011]</ref>
*February 5th, Obama's special envoy for Egypt, Frank Wisner says President Mubarak must stay for now. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/egypt-president-mubarak-must-stay-us-envoy-says.html EGYPT: President Mubarak must stay for now, U.S. envoy says, LA Times, February 5, 2011]</ref>
*February 5th, Saturday evening the Obama Administration said Mubarak should step aside. <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html Obama Administration Distances Self From Own Envoy to Mubarak, ABC News, February 5, 2011]</ref>
*February 6th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mubarak must stay in power. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07diplo.html?_r=1 Warning Against Hasty Exit for Mubarak, NY Times, February 6, 2011]</ref>
*Bill O’Reilly interviews Obama and asks him if the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] is a threat to the [[U.S.]], Obama addressed the answer without a yes or no but with [[liberal obfuscation]] instead. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/06/oreilly-obama-interview-shows-obama-changed-course/ O'Reilly Obama Interview Shows That President Still Hasn't Changed Course, Fox News, February 6, 2011 ]</ref>
*Washington bureaucrats mandate the Mansfield Texas school district teach Arabic "language of the future," and involves embedding Arabic culture in all facets of school activities. This was made possible by a $1.3 million dollar Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) federal grant. <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1290896 Flap over feds funding Arabic culture curriculum, One News Now, February 8, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton gave tacit approval to the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in Egyptian politics. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261069</ref>
*Obama's State Department has begun sending [[Twitter]] messages in Arabic. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/09/state-department-begins-tweeting-in-arabic/ State Department begins tweeting in Arabic, The Daily Caller, february 9, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's National Intelligence director James Clapper said Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization even though their stated goal is an [[Islamic]] state and the [[CIA]] lists them as a religious organization. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/muslim-brotherhood-a-secular-organization-says-clapper/ Muslim Brotherhood a ’secular’ organization says Clapper, Daily Caller, February 10, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration, which did not openly back Iranian protesters in 2009, now tells Iran to allow protests. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/13/pressures-iran-allow-protests-prince-says-tehran-moment-coming/ U.S. Pressures Iran to Allow Protests, Former Prince Says 'Tehran Moment' Coming, Fox News, February 13, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department began sending Twitter messages in [[Farsi]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/13/starts-farsi-twitter-account-aimed-iranians/ State Department began sending Twitter messages in Farsi, Fox News, February 13, 2011]</ref>
*Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem praises [[Al-Jazeera]] and pleads for U.S. cable providers to carry the network. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-administration-official-urges-cable-providers-to-carry-al-jazeera/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL URGES CABLE PROVIDERS TO CARRY AL-JAZEERA, The Blaze, February 14, 2011]</ref>
*Senator [[John Kerry]] travels to [[Pakistan]] to ease tensions over a U.S. government official, Raymond Davis, suspected of killing two Pakistani men in self-defense. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/14/sen-john-kerry-heads-to-pakistan-to-calm-diplomatic-tensions/ Sen. John Kerry heads to Pakistan to calm diplomatic tensions, Daily Caller, February 14, 2011]</ref>
*Interfering in [[France]]'s domestic policy, the Obama State Department sets up a Muslim Think Tank in [[Paris]]. <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110217/wl_csm/364156_1 In France, US advocacy for Muslim rights raises more than a few hackles, Yahoo news, February 17, 2011]</ref>
*February 18th, the U.S. vetoes [[U.N.]] resolution supported by Muslim countries condemning Israeli settlement construction. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0218/If-Obama-opposes-Israeli-settlement-activity-why-did-US-veto-UN-vote If Obama opposes Israeli settlement activity, why did US veto UN vote?, Christian Science Monitor, February 18, 2011]</ref>
*February 18th, Secretary of State Clinton condemns [[Israel]] settlement construction to appease Muslims. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-israeli-settlements-illegitimate/story?id=12952834 Hillary Clinton: Israeli Settlements 'Illegitimate', ABC News, February 18, 2011]</ref>
*A [[White House]] official said the administration is seeking clarification from senior [[Libya | Libyan]] officials about their intentions regarding civil unrest. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/state-department-orders-diplomats-family-members-libya/ State Department Orders Diplomats' Family Members Out of Libya, Fox News, February 21, 2011]</ref>
*White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the president’s [9 day] silence on Libya thus far was due to a “scheduling issue.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/obama-breaks-silence-on-libya-protests/#ixzz1Ew4t9jYr Obama breaks silence on Libya protests, The Daily Caller, February 23, 2011]</ref>
*Obama speaking out against the Libyan dictator for the first time since the uprising began, "Leave Libya now." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/obama-qaddafi-needs-leave/ Obama: Qaddafi Needs to Leave Now, Fox News, February 26, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton praises [[Islamic]] Al-Jazeera as "real news", [[U.S.]] news as "not particularly informative to us." <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/03/hillary-clinton-al-jazeera-offers-real-news/ Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera offers ‘real new, The Daily Caller, March 3, 2011]</ref>
*Despite the evidence of an Islamic gunman in [[Germany]] killing two U.S. airmen, Obama and his administration refuse to call the attack terrorism. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/german-gunmans-pistol-jammed-saving-u-s-airman/ GERMAN GUNMAN’S PISTOL JAMMED, SAVING U.S. AIRMAN, The Blaze, March 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department is using tax dollars to refurbish mosques overseas as a way to improve relations. Some extremist mosques are getting U.S. funded internet service to spread Islam.<ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/hundreds-of-mil.html Hundreds of $Millions of US Taxpayer Money Spent to Refurbish Foreign Mosques, Moonbattery, March 5, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton will meet with Libyan opposition leaders during a visit to the Middle East. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-clinton-plans-meet-libyan-opposi Hillary Clinton Plans to Meet With Libyan Opposition Leaders; Going to Egypt Next Week, CNS News, 10 March, 2011]. </ref>
*The State Department is sending a senior official to attend a March 15 meeting hosted by the National Iranian-American Council. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/14/state-department-senior-official-to-at tend-conference-of-org-accused-of-being-advocate-for-iranian-theocracy/ State Department senior official to attend conference of org accused of being advocate for Iranian theocracy, Daily Caller, March 14, 2011 ]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton travels to Egypt for talks with the new [[government]]. <ref>March 15, 2011</ref>
*[[White House]] officials have applauded advocacy efforts by the [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]], even though top [[FBI]] managers refuse to meet its leaders. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/18/hamas-associated-cair-applauded-by-white-house/#ixzz1Gz69NHXD Hamas-associated CAIR applauded by White House, The Daily Caller, March 18, 2011]</ref>
*The U.N. authorizes a no fly zone for Libya. March 19, Obama commits America to lead the no-fly zone and is expected to hand off the lead to [[NATO]]. Obama bypasses congress from involvement.
*Obama's Justice Department sues on behalf of a Muslim teachers fired for taking three weeks time off for [[Hajj]]. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-sues-on-behalf-of-muslim-teacher-triggering-debate/2010/07/28/ABfSPtEB_story.html Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate, WaPo, March 22, 2011]</ref>
*Obama to address the [[American]] people March 28 regarding the bombing of Libya, 9 days after launching [[Operation Odyssey Dawn]].
*Obama orders covert [[U.S.]] government support for rebel forces in Libya. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330 Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels, Reuters, March 30, 2011]</ref>
*[[Secretary of State]] Hillary Clinton calls Syrian President [[Bashar al-Assad]] "a reformer," says U.S. will not intervene in Syria's deadly uprising. <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html Clinton Says U.S. Won't Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight, Bloomberg, March 28, 2011]</ref>
*[[Eric Holder]] changes Islamic terrorist trials from civilian court to military tribunal. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/about-face-obama-admin-will-prosecute-911-plotters-in-military-court/ ABOUT-FACE: OBAMA ADMIN. WILL PROSECUTE 9/11 PLOTTERS IN MILITARY COURT, The Blaze, April 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama administration envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and advisor on Islamic "affairs", Rashad Hussain "When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem." <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/obama_envoy_islam_is_the_solut.html Obama envoy: Islam is the Solution not the Problem, American Thinker, April 6, 2011]</ref>
*Defense Secretary [[Robert Gates]] travels to the [[Middle East]] for the third time in a month to repair relations with Saudi Arabia after Obama pushed for Mubarak's replacement against the wishes of the Saudi King. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/after-upsetting-saudis-obama-sends-defen After Upsetting Saudis, Obama Sends Defense Secretary Gates to Discuss Arab Upheaval With Saudi King, CNSNews, April 6, 2011]</ref>
*8th Annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum will feature Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as host of the three-day event in D.C. <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/apr/clinton-hosts-islamic-world-forum-obama Clinton Hosts Islamic World Forum For Obama In D.C., Judicial Watch, April 11, 2011]</ref>
*Syria opposition groups have asked for Obama personally to condemn the Assad regime, he will not. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/14/syrian-protesters-get-muted-response-from-us/ White House rebuffs Syrian opposition, Washington Times, April 14, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department’s deputy assistant secretary Dana Shell Smith talks about Al-Jazeera news channel "This administration has empowered those of us who actually do the communicating to be in a close relationship with Al-Jazeera." <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53339.html#ixzz1JwKNN7tT Al-Jazeera has fans in Obama W.H., Politico, April 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama heaps the praises of the Al-Jazeera as the emir of [[Qatar]] who owns the news channel visited the [[White House]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/17/obama-admin-heaps-praise-on-al-jazeera-theyre-a-really-important-media-entity-we-have-a-really-great-relationship-with-them/ Obama Admin Heaps Praise on Al-Jazeera, Weasel Zippers, April 17, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's Department of Justice decided not to prosecute [[CAIR]], its co-founder Omar Ahmad, and others of the Holy Land Foundation case regarding terror financing of [[Hamas]]. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-source-gov%E2%80%99t-muslim-outreach-jeopardized-active-terror-investigations/ DOJ Source: Gov’t Muslim ‘Outreach’ Jeopardized Active Terror Investigations, Pajamas Media, April 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama approves $25 million in non-lethal aid to rebels in Libya. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42680111 US to give Libyan rebels non-lethal aid, MSNBC, April 20, 2011]</ref>
*In March, Barack Obama issued a Muslim [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/20/president-obama-s-nowruz-message Nowruz message] and also released a version in Arabic. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/obama-white-house-releases-persian-nowruz-message-muslim-ramadan-message-skips-easter/ Change!… Obama White House Releases Nowruz Message, Muslim Ramadan Message, Muslim Hajj Message, Muslim Eid-ul-Fitr Message… Skips Easter, Gateway Pundit, April 25, 2011]</ref>
*Obama orders the U.S. military to take out [[Osama Bin Laden]], claims victory. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/01/obama_at_my_direction_us_carried_out_operation_against_bin_laden.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dbe9ac88f6970ec%2C0 Obama: "At My Direction" U.S. Carried Out Operation Against Bin Laden, RealClearPolitics, May 1, 2011]</ref>
*White House to <s>delay,</s> <ref>[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/white-house-to-delay-the-release-of-gruesome-bin-laden-death-photos-due-to-muslim-sensitivities.html White House to delay the release of "gruesome" bin Laden death photos due to Muslim "sensitivities", JihadWatch, May 3, 2011]</ref> refuse to release <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20059739-503544.html Obama: I won't release bin Laden death photos - Political Hotsheet, CBS News, May 4, 2011]</ref> [[Osama bin Laden | OBL]] death photos due to Muslim "sensitivities."
*Hillary Clinton: U.S. trying to free up $3 Billion in Libyan assets to fund rebels. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05/clinton-trying-free-billions-libyan-assets-help-rebels/#ixzz1LW3SZaiz Hillary Clinton: U.S. trying to free up $3 Billion in Libyan assets to fund rebel, Fox News, May 5, 2011]</ref>
*May 19th Obama gives a speech telling Israeli to pull back to 1967 borders for the creation of a Palestinian state.
*Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launches ‘Muslim Civilization’ science exhibition in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-clinton-launches-muslim-civilization-science-exhibition-122602353.html Hillary Clinton launches ‘Muslim Civilization’ science exhibit, PRNewswire, May 25, 2011]</ref>
*The USA and the Group of Eight leaders approve $40 billion in aid to Arab uprising countries.
*New national rules of engagement for federal raids on Muslim arrest warrants, wait for [[Mosque]] service to complete before arresting. <ref>[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/agents-followed-new-politically-correct-rules-when-arresting-florida-imam-accused-of-funding-taliban.html Agents followed new politically correct rules when arresting Florida imam accused of funding Taliban, JihadWatch.org, May 15, 2011]</ref>
*Obama administration condemns Syria for shuttering Internet but does little publicly to condemn the bloodshed by the Assad regime on the Syrian people. <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/164769-obama-administration-condemns-syrian-regime-for-shuttering-internet Obama administration condemns Syria for shuttering Internet, The Hill, June 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama backed Libyan rebels with ties to [[Al Qaeda]].
*Obama violates War Powers Act, argues that US military activity in the [[NATO]]-led air war over Libya does not amount to "hostilities." [http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/06/18/barack-obama-ignored-the-advice-of-two-justice-department-lawyers-on-libya/]
*The Obama administration is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a “limited” effort to build ties in Egypt. No extension to Coptic Christians offered. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/clinton-admits-we-are-now-reaching-out-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/ CLINTON ADMITS WE ARE NOW REACHING OUT TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, The Blaze, June 30, 2011]</ref>
*Obama orders Somali terror suspect to be tried in U.S. civilian courts with all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens. <ref>[http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/169835-mcconnell-slams-obama-decision-to-grant-terror-suspect-civil-court-trial McConnell slams decision to grant terror suspect civilian trial, The Hill, July 6, 2011]</ref>
*Obama seeks to supply 125 M1A1 Tanks and other weapons to Egypt. <ref>[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/10/stop-obamas-egyptian-tank-sale/ Stop Obama’s Egyptian Tank Sale, Commentary magazine, July 10, 2011]</ref>
*A spokesperson of the U.S. State Department condemned reported plans by Iran to execute an Iranian pastor if he does not abandon his faith in [[Christ]]. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/809/043/U.S._Condemns_Iran_For_Threatening_To_Execute_Pastor.html U.S. Condemns Iran For Threatening To Execute Pastor, Before Its News, July 12, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration defended [[U.S.]] aid to the Palestinian Authority despite its alliance with terrorist group [[Hamas]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/13/obama-admin-defends-u-s-aid-to-the-palestinians-after-house-passes-resolution-calling-for-suspension/#comment-230040 Obama Admin Defends U.S. Aid To The Palestinians After House Passes Resolution Calling For Suspension, Weasel Zippers, July 13, 2011]</ref>
*The United States will formally recognize the top opposition group in Libya as that nation’s government. <ref>[http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/171697-clinton-us-recognizes-top-libyan-rebel-group-as-legit-government Clinton: U.S. will recognize top Libyan rebel group as country’s government, The Hill, July 15, 2011]</ref>
*Obama tells Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and announces a new set of sanctions. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/18/sources-us-call-for-assad-departure-imminent/?test=latestnews Obama Calls on Assad to Step Down, Imposes New Sanctions, Fox News, August 18, 2011]</ref>
*Various reports show the State Department trying to get the Muslim Brotherhood to replace Assad, just like in Egypt. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274969/annals-arab-spring-obama-administration-backs-muslim-brotherhood-syria-andrew-c-mccart# Annals of the Arab Spring: Obama Administration Backs Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, NRO, August 18, 2011]</ref>

===References===
{{Reflist|3}}
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T16:50:04Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T16:49:31Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T16:35:17Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T16:34:49Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T16:32:16Z

JMairs: /* The Devil's Advocate */ new section

Moon

2011-08-23T15:59:35Z

JMairs: /* Lunar origin theories */ Actually low levels of iron in the moon are in accordance with the idea that it's formed from crustal rock, as the article makes clear. (Iron-POOR surface.)

{{Planet|image=Moon2.jpg
|caption=The Moon one week after a full moon
|primary=Earth
|periapsis=363,300 km<ref name=moonfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html Moon Fact Sheet]," [[NASA]], April 19, 2007. Accessed May 3, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=405,500 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|semimajor=384,400 km<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_elem Planetary Satellite Mean Orbital Parameters]." [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory|JPL]], [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref>
|orbitradius=378,000 km
|eccentricity=0.0549<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit/>
|sidereal=27.3217 da
|synodic=29.530588 da
|orbitspeed=1.023 km/s
|inclination=18.28°<ref name=moonfact/>
|siderealday=27.3217 da<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdorbit/>
|solarday=29.530588 da
|mass=7.35 * 1022 (1.23% earth)<ref name=moonfact/>
|density=3350 kg/m³<ref name=ssdphys>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par Planetary Satellite Physical Parameters]." [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory|JPL]], [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]]. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref>
|surfacegrav=1.62 m/s² (0.165 ''g'')<ref name=moonfact/>
|escapespeed=2.38 km/s<ref name=moonfact/>
|meanradius=1737.1 km<ref name=moonfact/><ref name=ssdphys/>
|equatorradius =1738.1 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|polarradius =1736.0 km<ref name=moonfact/>
|surfacearea=37,919,000 km² (7.434% earth)
|mintemp=100 K
|meantemp=250 K
|maxtemp=400 K
|albedo=0.12<ref name=moonfact/>
|pmdm=1.3 * 1015 N-m/T<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>
|cmdm=1.73 * 1022 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=364 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=252.3 a<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
}}A '''moon''' is a body which orbits a [[planet]]. The Earth's Moon (sometimes known as "Luna") is a natural [[satellite]] orbiting Earth at an average distance of about 238,000 miles (380,000 km).

The Moon is unique in the solar system in its large relative size compared with the [[Earth]]. The Moon appears from the Earth to be the same size as the [[sun]], in perfect artistic symmetry, unlike any known other planet-moon system. Moreover, unlike most planets in the [[solar system]], [[Earth]] has only one moon. And the Moon has two more remarkable artistic attributes: (1) it rotates and revolves in a way such that only one side is ever visible to the Earth and (2) its side that faces the Earth is smooth, while the side that remains hidden is jagged. To those on Earth the Moon appears as an artistic disc that goes through phases in which greater or lesser amounts of the side lit by the sun are visible from Earth.

[[Atheists]] have proposed a number of theories to explain the [[Origin of the Moon]], including a second planet colliding with [[Earth]] or even a second moon colliding with the first.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/03/earth-once-had-second-moon-astronomers-say/?test=faces</ref> None of these theories are plausible and all lack evidential support. A collision cannot plausibly explain why the Moon's smooth side faces the Earth while the jagged side is hidden from human view.

==The Moon as God's creation==

The Earth's moon has several striking characteristics. To many Christians, these characteristics appear as "clues" or "hints" left by God for men to discover. <ref>http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-phase/CALENDARS.htm</ref>

===Size of its disc===

The Moon appears to have approximately the same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a unique symmetry and phenomenal [[solar eclipse|solar eclipses]].
The Moon is just far enough away from the Earth to appear the same size of the Sun.
The odds of this occurring by chance are nearly zero.

===Rotation and revolution===

The Moon presents the same side to [[Earth]] at all times. That means that the rotation of the Earth offsets the separate effects of lunar revolution. Physical explanations rely on [[tidal locking]], asserting that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby creating a drag on the rotation of the Moon until the same side always faced the Earth.<ref> The same theory suggested that the planet [[Mercury]] had a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. In fact, that is false. [[Mercury]]'s tidal locking is incomplete and it does not always present the same face to the sun.</ref> In fact, current tidal forces exerted by the [[Earth]] on the Moon cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape.<ref>"[http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM Chapter 8, Section 3: The Rotation of the Moon]," "Astronomy Today", Department of Physics, Fort Lewis College, Durango, [[Colorado|CO]]. Accessed February 18, 2008</ref>

===Lunar origin theories===

Most astronomers assert that the Moon originated from a collision early in Earth's history which created an orbiting ring of debris from the [[iron]]-poor surface of the planet which eventually coalesced into the moon.<ref>http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2198</ref>

Biblical history records the Moon being created on the fourth day of [[creation week]], along with the Sun.

===Rate of recession===

The Moon currently recedes from the Earth at a rate of 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year<ref>NASA [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance], LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.</ref>, and is believed by [[atheist]]ic scientists to be 4.6 billion years old,<ref>NASA, [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-15-2.html Apollo Expeditions to the Moon], Chapter 15.2.</ref> The Moon could never have been closer than about 11,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces.<ref name="js">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/764/ The moon: the light that rules the night], ''Creation'' 20(4):36–39, September 1998.</ref> If the rate of recession stayed constant at 3.8 cm per year, it would take 9.6 billion years for the lunar distance to migrate from 11,000 miles to the present distance of about 240,000 miles. 

===Impact craters===
Astronomers assume that crater impacts are a reliable indicator of the age of a celestial body. True to the form and principles of [[uniformitarianism]] (as applied to [[astronomy]] rather than to [[geology]]), any such estimation relies upon uniform constants and weather/erosion trends. Recent research into crater impacts on the moon suggests that many of the assumptions previously made are unwarranted. Bonnie Buratti of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has asserted that space weathering "takes place very rapidly on the Moon."<ref>David, Leonard. "[http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/lunar_impact_021214.html Lunar Crash of 1953: Impact Crater Identified]." <http://www.space.com>, December 14, 2002. Accessed January 16, 2008.</ref> Peter Brown of the University of Western Ontario insists that there is no absolute criteria for the dating of craters.<ref>Hecht, Jeff. "[http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3242 New crater revives Moon mystery]." <http://www.newscientist.com>, January 11, 2003. Accessed January 16, 2008.</ref>

===Creationist models===
Danny Faulkner of the [[Institute for Creation Research]] has observed that many of the lunar maria contain ''ghost craters'', or craters that the lava flow that produced the maria seem to have filled only partially. In the [[deep time]] scale required by [[uniformitarianism]], the ghost craters are the result of impacts that occurred as much as half a gigayear before the crust-fracturing impacts that caused the lava flows.<ref name=Henderson>Henderson, Thomas H. "[http://www.hal-pc.org/~tom/HeavyCratering.html Do heavily cratered planets and moons demand an old age for the solar system]?" ''Tom Henderson's Creation Resources'', July 25, 2003. Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref> This is not a reasonable assumption, because any impact strong enough to crack the crust should have obliterated any craters previously extant. Faulkner thus concludes that the impacts that formed the ghost craters, and those that let loose the lava flows that formed the maria, occurred within days of one another<ref name=Faulkner1>Faulkner, Danny. "[http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/ The Current State of Creation Astronomy]." ''Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism,'' Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 201–216, August 3-8, 1998. Hosted at ''[[Institute for Creation Research]].'' Accessed March 25, 2008.</ref> and were probably part of at least one system-wide catastrophe involving a narrow stream of meteoroids and/or comets that delivered a concentrated bombardment of the Earth and Moon in a short interval.<ref name=Faulkner2>Faulkner, Danny. "[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1637 A Biblically-based cratering theory]." ''Technical Journal'' (now ''Journal of Creation''), 13(1):100-104, April 1999.</ref>

Faulkner assumes that this system-wide catastrophe occurred during the year of the [[Great Flood]]. But in 1984, Russell Humphreys, then at the Sandia National Laboratories, developed evidence suggesting different dates entirely. Specifically, the [[Project Apollo]] exploration teams brought back many samples of [[basalt]] (an [[igneous rock]]) and [[brecchia]] (pulverized meteor-impact remains). Geologists analyzed both types of samples and found evidence that each type of rock had once been in a magnetic field far more powerful than that which the Moon has today. Using his model for the creation and decay of magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys/>, Humphreys determined that the basalt had been laid down about 370 years after creation, and the brecchia had been laid down 1840 years after creation, or about 190 years after the Flood.<ref name=Humphreys2>Humphreys reasoned that the higher the magnetic dipole moment of the samples, the earlier in lunar history they were formed.</ref> These findings clearly suggest that the Moon, and presumably all other bodies in the solar system, have been subject to two separate system-wide bombardments, one occurring in the second or third generation after the [[fall of man]] and the other occurring well after the Flood.

==Tides==

The gravitational force of the Moon causes the ocean [[tides]]; these tidal forces have other effects as well. These tidal forces have the effect of creating resistance which slows down the rotation of both objects. In the case of the Earth, the result is that the Earth's rotation slows on the order of one millisecond per century. The Moon's rotation is locked in to its period of revolution, and the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.

==The "dark" or far side==

The phrase "the ''dark'' side of the Moon" is inaccurate because the Moon does rotate relative to the Sun, with the same period as its period of revolution, once every 29 days. Our view of the Moon from the Earth always shows the same side of the Moon, with the same markings and features. When the Moon is full, the entire side that faces us is experiencing lunar "day" and is lit by the Sun. Two weeks later, when the Moon is new, the side that faces us is experiencing solar "night" and is unlit (and virtually invisible).

The far side of the moon is far more heavily cratered than the near, and the predominant type of cratering is consistent with brecchia-forming meteor impact. This would suggest that the far side suffered its bombardment in the latter of the two catastrophes that Humphreys suggests that the Moon has suffered.

Due to a slight "wobble" in the lunar motion called ''libration,'' we actually see a little bit more than half of the Moon's surface; sometimes it is turned a bit one way and sometimes the other. However, nobody had any idea of what the far side of the Moon looked like until 1959, when a Soviet satellite photographed it and relayed pictures back.
==Earthshine==
[[image:oldmooninnew.jpg|200px|right|thumb|The "old Moon in the new Moon's arms"]]
In the old Scottish ballad ''Sir Patrick Spens''<ref>Child, Francis James (1860), ''The English and Scottish Popular Ballads,'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm No. 58]; the ballad is thought to refer to an actual event of the year A.D. 1290.</ref>, a sailor cautions:

:"I saw the new moon late yestreen
::With the old moon in her arm;
:And if we go to sea, master,
::I fear we'll come to harm."

The effect known as "the old Moon in the new Moon's arms" can often be seen when the Moon is a narrow [[crescent]]. Within the intensely bright crescent, a dim and mysterious view of the entire circular moon is seen. The effect is also known as ''earthshine'' because it is light from the Sun reflected off the Earth to the Moon and back that lights up the darker portion of the Moon. The bright crescent is lit by the Sun and is in full daylight. The rest of the Moon is not lit by the Sun; but an [[astronaut]] standing in this area would see a "full Earth" dominating the nighttime sky, lighting it up by its earthshine. The brightness of Earthshine, and hence the visibility of the old Moon in the new Moon's arms, varies. When the Earth is covered with clouds, or when there is a lot of snow-pack on the side of the Earth facing the Moon, the Earth is a white and bright and the Earthshine is intense. When the Earth looks like a "big, blue marble," it is less intense.

==Lunar calendars==

Throughout history, many calendar systems have been based on the phases of the moon.

The months of the [[Islam|Muslim]] [[calendar]] are determined by observations of the [[hilal]], the moment at which the thin crescent moon first becomes visible. This marks the start of a month. Traditionally, and today in [[Pakistan]] and [[Jordan]], hilal is determined by actual observation and can be affected by weather and other factors. When following the traditional method, it is not actually possible to be certain precisely when future months will begin. In most Muslim countries, actual observation has been replaced by [[astronomy|astronomical]] rules.

==The Moon in culture==

"The Old Moon in the New Moon's Arms" is the title of a poem by [[Ella Wheeler Wilcox]], in which she interprets the effect as the New Moon wishing that her lost love, the Old Moon, be in her arms one last time; Venus grants the wish, and:

:Swift thro' the vapors and the golden mist— 
::The Full Moon's shadowy shape shone on the night, 
:The New Moon reached out clasping arms and kissed 
::Her phantom lover in the whole world's sight. 

== Trivia==
Although the Moon is often described as revolving around the Earth, this is slightly inaccurate: the Earth and the Moon ''both'' revolve around their ''barycenter'', their common [[centroid|center of mass]]. This point is 1,700 below the earth's surface, which is about 1/4 of the earth's [[radius]].<ref> The radius of the Earth is 6,378 kilometers, so that means that the barycenter is located INSIDE the Earth about 1707 kilometers below its surface. [http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q665.html] </ref>

The combined motion is like an athlete performing an [[Olympics| Olympic]] hammer throw: one object swings in a large circle, the other almost pivots around a fixed point but actually performs a small opposing circle of its own. <ref>The Earth and the Moon orbit each other around a gravitational midpoint called the ''barycenter.'' This point is, however, actually inside the Earth, about 3/4 of its radius from its center. It is not the Earth, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, that orbits the [[Sun]] in a near-perfect ellipse. Relative to this ellipse, Earth is 3,000 miles closer to the Sun at full moon and 3,000 miles further from the Sun at new moon.</ref>

When speaking of things having to do with the moon, the adjective ''lunar'' is used. The Greek-derived prefixed root ''selen-'' followed by the morpheme ''-o-'' is used as well; for example, the [[science]] of mapping the moon is called ''[[selenography]]'' (morphemes: ''selen-o-graph-y''). (Note, however, that the apsides of the orbits of the [[Project Apollo]] spacecraft were always called ''pericynthion'' and ''apocynthion'', not "periselene" and "aposelene.")

== Other moons ==
[[Image:Many_Moons.jpg|250px|left]]
While the Moon of [[Earth]] is the best-known satellite of any [[planet]], other planets in our solar system also have moons. Earth has the least number of moons (one), while [[Jupiter]] has sixty-two. The first extraterrestrial moons to be discovered were the four Galilean moons ([[Io]], [[Europa (moon)|Europa]], [[Ganymede]], and [[Callisto]]. Next to these, Earth's Moon is one of the largest, but Jupiter and [[Saturn]] have moons in orbit about them that might qualify as planets if they orbited the [[Sun]] instead.

=== Sizes of moons ===
Most moons in the solar system are no larger than typical asteroids. They are of irregular shape, have light and variable surface gravities, and are often unstable in their orbits. [[Phobos]] and [[Deimos]], the moons of [[Mars]], fall into this category.

Earth's own moon is an example of a [[dwarf planet]]-sized moon. These moons are so large that their own self-gravity forces them to collapse into spheres or spheroids. Some of them, like [[Ganymede]] and [[Titan (moon)|Titan]], are larger even than the planet [[Mercury]]. Earth's moon was, of course, known to the ancients, but the remaining dwarf-planet-sized moons were generally the first to be discovered in orbit around any given primary. [[Galileo Galilei]] discovered the first four of these in orbit about [[Jupiter]] early in the seventeenth century; [[Christiaan Huygens]] then discovered Titan of [[Saturn]] later in that same century.

== Symbolic importance in Islam ==
The crescent moon is an internationally recognized symbol of [[Islam]]. It appears on the flags of several Islamic nations. It also forms part of the official emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. <ref>http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origin of the Moon]]
== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]
==Further reading==
* Donna Henes. ''The Moon Watcher's Companion: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Moon, and More'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Watchers-Companion-Everything-Wanted/dp/1569244669/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241592218&sr=1-11 excerpt and text search]
* David Schrunk et al. ''The Moon: Resources, Future Development and Settlement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Resources-Development-Settlement-Exploration/dp/0387360557/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241592379&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Seymour Simon, ''The Moon'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Seymour-Simon/dp/0689835639/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241592218&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

== Notes and References ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Solarsystem}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-08-23T01:24:47Z

JMairs: /* Standard kilogrammes? */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-23T01:20:22Z

JMairs: /* Improving article */

Talk:Freemasonry

2011-08-22T15:05:42Z

JMairs:

Frankly, most of this info is bunk. It goes on weird, irrelevant tangents, and is biased.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps at one point but as it stands now it is quite concise and to the point, and might I add the most fair and informative article I've seen on Freemasonry on the internet in a long time.
[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm no, I've changed my mind. It's rather skimpy to be certain.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:28, 24 August 2008 (EDT) Still though it's nice to see it not being trashed.
no mention is made in this article that freemasonry is regarded as an anti-christian organisation. john thurloe 31 10 08
:Probably because it generally ISN'T regarded as an anti-Christian organisation, except by a lunatic fringe, and there's no reason whatsoever that it should be. Nothing in Freemasonry is contrary to the teachings of Christianity. The Swedish Rite is ONLY open to christians. The book on the altar may be referred to as the Volume of the Sacred Law, but in most Lodges it's a King James Bible. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 11:05, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-08-22T12:14:40Z

JMairs: /* Standard kilogrammes? */

Christine O'Donnell

2011-08-22T01:35:46Z

JMairs: "Apparent" discrepancies seems fairer; it's very likely that software errors ARE to blame.

[[File:Christine.jpg|right]]
'''Christine O'Donnell''' (born August 27, 1969) is a [[pro-life]] political commentator for the [[Fox News]] channel, having appeared on [[The O'Reilly Factor]], [[Fox & Friends]], and [[Glenn Beck]]. She was the [[Tea Party Express]] and Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in [[Delaware]] in 2010, defeating [[pro-abortion]] GOP Congressman [[Mike Castle]]. She was defeated in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]] by her opponent, [[Chris Coons]].

Following the midterm elections, apparent discrepancies in her campaign reports led to a federal investigation, the results of which are still pending.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53573.html Christine O’Donnell blames software for errors in fundraising reports] Politico, 04/22/2011</ref> She has a book coming out in August 2011 entitled ''Troublemaker: Let’s Do What It Takes to Make America Great Again''

==Liberal Attacks==
Predictably, the [[liberal]] establishment has wasted no time in viciously attacking a woman who dares to defend [[pro-life]] and [[Christian]] beliefs. While such slander from liberal media like MSNBC is unsurprising, even supposedly unbiased networks like ABC have claimed that O'Donnell is "either lying or mentally unhinged."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/09/15/george-stephanopoulos-touts-attacks-odonnells-opponents-shes-mentall</ref> Liberal commentators also unfairly jumped at a previous video of her saying she used to "dabble into witchcraft," constantly mocking her as a "witch" throughout her 2010 senate run.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/christine.odonnell.profile/index.html</ref>

Some conservative commentators have observed the irony of liberals simultaneously claiming that the pro-life movement is anti-feminist while heaping contempt on any woman who dares to defy Democratic control and stand up for her own beliefs; in this way, the reaction to O'Donnell is remeniscint of the similar treatment of Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential Election.<ref>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/vjackson/2010/09/15/the-perfect-feminist/</ref>

==Endorsements==
*[[Sarah Palin]] <ref>[http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7197&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+RightPundits+(Right+Pundits) Sarah endorses Christine, Right Pundits, September 9, 2010]</ref>
*[[Mark Levin]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*[[Jim DeMint]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Tea Party Express]]
*Independence Hall Tea Party PAC
*Diamond State Tea Party
*Our Country Deserves Better PAC
*[[Gun Owners of America]]
*[[NRA]]
*Citizens United PAC
*Delaware’s Common Sense Communities Society
*One Nation PAC
*Catholic Families of America
*Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund
*Tony Perkins and Family Research Council Action PAC
*Concerned Women PAC
*Pamela Geller
*Joanne Herring

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.christineodonnell.com/ Campaign Website]
*[http://teamchristine2010.com/ Team Christine 2010]
*[http://www.facebook.com/supportchristine Facebook page]
*[http://twitter.com/christineod Twitter page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:O'Donnell, Christine}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Women]]
{{conservatism}}

Christine O'Donnell

2011-08-22T01:34:45Z

JMairs: Undo revision 904259 by EdgarP (talk)Why delete this? It's referenced and seems relevant.

[[File:Christine.jpg|right]]
'''Christine O'Donnell''' (born August 27, 1969) is a [[pro-life]] political commentator for the [[Fox News]] channel, having appeared on [[The O'Reilly Factor]], [[Fox & Friends]], and [[Glenn Beck]]. She was the [[Tea Party Express]] and Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in [[Delaware]] in 2010, defeating [[pro-abortion]] GOP Congressman [[Mike Castle]]. She was defeated in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]] by her opponent, [[Chris Coons]].

Following the midterm elections, discrepancies in her campaign reports led to a federal investigation, the results of which are still pending.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53573.html Christine O’Donnell blames software for errors in fundraising reports] Politico, 04/22/2011</ref> She has a book coming out in August 2011 entitled ''Troublemaker: Let’s Do What It Takes to Make America Great Again''

==Liberal Attacks==
Predictably, the [[liberal]] establishment has wasted no time in viciously attacking a woman who dares to defend [[pro-life]] and [[Christian]] beliefs. While such slander from liberal media like MSNBC is unsurprising, even supposedly unbiased networks like ABC have claimed that O'Donnell is "either lying or mentally unhinged."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/09/15/george-stephanopoulos-touts-attacks-odonnells-opponents-shes-mentall</ref> Liberal commentators also unfairly jumped at a previous video of her saying she used to "dabble into witchcraft," constantly mocking her as a "witch" throughout her 2010 senate run.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/christine.odonnell.profile/index.html</ref>

Some conservative commentators have observed the irony of liberals simultaneously claiming that the pro-life movement is anti-feminist while heaping contempt on any woman who dares to defy Democratic control and stand up for her own beliefs; in this way, the reaction to O'Donnell is remeniscint of the similar treatment of Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential Election.<ref>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/vjackson/2010/09/15/the-perfect-feminist/</ref>

==Endorsements==
*[[Sarah Palin]] <ref>[http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7197&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+RightPundits+(Right+Pundits) Sarah endorses Christine, Right Pundits, September 9, 2010]</ref>
*[[Mark Levin]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*[[Jim DeMint]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Tea Party Express]]
*Independence Hall Tea Party PAC
*Diamond State Tea Party
*Our Country Deserves Better PAC
*[[Gun Owners of America]]
*[[NRA]]
*Citizens United PAC
*Delaware’s Common Sense Communities Society
*One Nation PAC
*Catholic Families of America
*Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund
*Tony Perkins and Family Research Council Action PAC
*Concerned Women PAC
*Pamela Geller
*Joanne Herring

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.christineodonnell.com/ Campaign Website]
*[http://teamchristine2010.com/ Team Christine 2010]
*[http://www.facebook.com/supportchristine Facebook page]
*[http://twitter.com/christineod Twitter page]

{{DEFAULTSORT:O'Donnell, Christine}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Women]]
{{conservatism}}