Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Ontological argument

2011-04-24T20:43:10Z

Kamiwashinda:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

The argument assumes that something has to meet the definition of god. otherwise the conclusion would not follow. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 12:37, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

==Ontological Proof For the Flying Spaghetti Monster==
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is that for which no greater being is conceivable.
That which exists is greater than that which does not exist.
That which does not exist fails to satisfy the definition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Therefore the Flying Spaghetti monster exists.
[[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 16:43, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Donald Trump

2011-04-24T20:39:49Z

Kamiwashinda: /* Political Positions */

[[File:031711trump.jpg|right]]

'''Donald Trump''' is a successful businessman, entrepreneur, and [[television]] personality. He was born in [[Queens]], [[New York City|New York]], [[New York]] on June 14, 1946. He has engaged in many financial pursuits and has a net worth estimated at $2.4 billion<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list?page=2 Forbes 400: Richest People in America, Forbes, September 2010]</ref>. He graduated from the New York Military Academy in 1964 and completed his studies at the Wharton School|Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the [[University of Pennsylvania]]. Trump has five children.

Donald Trump attended the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens. He told the Christian Broadcast Network that he still considers himself a [[Presbyterian]] and attends services for all major holidays and Sundays, and that "The Bible is certainly THE book." He receives Bibles from fans in the mail, and he either stores them or gives them away to others.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52942.html Donald Trump talks religion: 'I am a Christian' Politico, April 11, 2011]</ref>

Trump is apparently [[presidential election 2012|running for president in 2012]] as a [[Republican]]. He is the only candidate questioning the citizenship of [[Barack Obama]] and his failure to produce his birth certificate.

==Career==

Donald Trump began his career at Trump Organization. In his college years, he helped revitalize one of his father's failing real estate ventures. Donald Trump began opening hotels and casinos, which provided him with the cash flow to engage in other ventures. He owns the world famous Trump Tower, and is the founder of the publicly traded Trump Hotel Casinos & Resorts. Trump also owns the Trump brand, which sells a variety of items, such as bottled water, steak, and even mortgages. Trump has authored a number of books and weathered changing business fortunes, but despite the challenges that he has encountered, he has continued to be a successful businessman and entrepreneur.

==Major Properties==

*Trump World Tower: 845 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY.

*Trump Tower: 725 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10022 Personal Residence

*Trump Taj Mahal

*Trump Marina

*Bank of America Center (San Francisco)

*The Trump Building at 40 Wall Street

*Trump Plaza

*Trump Park Avenue

*Trump Entertainment Resorts

*TrumpStreet Casino & Entertainment Complex, Philadelphia

*AXA Financial Center, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY

*Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago

*Mar-A-Lago Palm Beach

*Four golf courses in the U.S.

==Media==

In 2003 Trump began as the host and executive producer of the reality [[television]] show ''The Apprentice'', where contestants compete for a position in Trump's organization. On this show, Trump popularized his catchphrase "You're fired!"

Trump owns the Miss Universe Pageant. Controversy arose when one of the winners, Tara Conner, was caught breaking pageant rules by drinking and other activities. Trump gave her a second chance after personally speaking with her, and allowed her to retain her crown as she attended rehabilitation. For several weeks after this, [[Rosie O'Donnell]] berated Trump for his decision on ''The View''. A bitter media war ensued with the two exchanging insults.

Trump has appeared on several TV shows and movies for guest appearances. He generally appears as himself.

==Political Positions==

Donald Trump has announced his desire to run for president as the Republican nominee. He is pro-life, supports a 25% tariff on Chinese goods, and wants to eliminate the Department of Education. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.tv/pro-life-donald-trump-would-eliminate-dept-of-education-impose-25-tax-on-china-imports-if-president/ PRO-LIFE DONALD TRUMP WOULD ELIMINATE DEPT OF EDUCATION, IMPOSE 25% TAX ON CHINA IMPORTS IF PRESIDENT, Breitbart.tv, February 9, 2011]</ref> Trump gave a speech at the 2011 [[CPAC]] conference. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/trump-at-cpac-points-to-white-house-run/ Trump at CPAC points to White House run, The Daily Caller, February 10, 2011]</ref> He said he would end [[ObamaCare]], and he is against gun control.

He has been criticized for his substantial contributions to [[Democrat]] lawmakers; the majority of those lawmakers are located in the states he resides in: New York and Florida.

Trump has also questioned the eligibility of Obama's presidency, in light of the ongoing questions surrounding his birth certificate, and despite Obama's mother's citizenship making him eligible regardless of place of birth.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280533 Trump: Obama spending millions to hide his past, WorldNetDaily, March 28, 2011]</ref>.

==Quotes==
* "This country is going to hell."
* "We have no leader in this country.” <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-karlrove-gop-birther/2011/04/22/id/393742 Trump: I'd Just Take Libyan Oil, NewsMax, April 22, 2011</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.trump.com Official website]
* [http://shouldtrumprun.com/ Should Donald Run? Polling]
* [http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/04/trump-explains-conversion-on-abortion.html Trump explains his pro-life conversion]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trump, Donald}}

[[Category:Celebrities]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Talk:Birthplace of Barack Obama

2011-04-24T20:24:41Z

Kamiwashinda:

==See also==

Please, add to the article a "See also" section (as well as a "References" one):

<nowiki>==See also==</nowiki>

<nowiki> *[[Barack Obama birthplace controversy]] </nowiki> 
<nowiki> *[[Obama birth certificate controversy]] </nowiki> 
<nowiki> *[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]] </nowiki> 
<nowiki> *[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]] </nowiki>

Thanks. --[[User:Ty|Ty]] 16:46, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

==Bias==
This article is clearly biased in favor of birthers. There's extensive evidence of his being born in Hawaii, and his status as a British subject is totally irrelevant. Regardless of his place of birth, his mother was a natural-born US citizen, which makes him a natural-born US citizen, as citizenship can be inherited from one's parents. The argument that he is not eligible for presidency is based on ignorance and misinterpretation of the facts. This article, however, has a clear bias in favor of the belief that Barack Obama is not a US citizen, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 16:24, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!

2011-04-24T20:23:57Z

Kamiwashinda:

==Initial queries==
Uh, I'm not sure about this one, honestly. By the way, do essays need to be true and verifiable, as the title claim is not yet? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: Addison, the essay and song do not mention a specific individual!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Come on....some humor please! An old saying, always true, is: "If the shoe fits, wear it." --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:11, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Your shameful attempts at dodging are as transparent as the water of a dead lake, Andy.
::And your song doesn't scan right. At all. "Born in the USA." Six syllables. "Born nowhere near the USA." Eight. Do you see the problem? Most of it doesn't rhyme, either. Keep your day job... haha, oh wait, you just live off your mom's money... nevermind. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Wow, TBaker, this entry really got under your skin!! Too bad your rebuttal is so pathetic. Go back to [[public school]] where they might nod their heads at your incoherence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::::Er... how is the rebuttal pathetic? Your song sucks, simply. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::: TBaker, you're complaining because the song gets under your skin. You wouldn't bother otherwise. The truth does sting for those who insist on denying it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, what an impressive encyclopedic entry. What high standards here at Conservapedia. Hey, is it ok for me to write an anti-Bush song or anti-Palin song?? I promise I won't ''mention a specific individual!!!''
*You guys are Conservative alright. No doubt about that. Hating all things blue and defending all things red. But don't you dare claim to be a Christian encyclopedia. [[User:AFlaily|AFlaily]] 17:20, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: "AFlaily", you can't even post in your own real name. See my response to TBaker above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Has anyone noticed that [[liberals]] always have absolutely no sense of humor, and lack the ability to laugh at themselves? All they seem to have is self-righteous indignation. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:::We have a sense of humor. This simply isn't funny. It's juvenile. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::I also notice that [[liberals]] are always full of [[deceit]] as well, making and re-making socks, just to argue. And why do you Canadian liberal trolls care so much about United States matters, anyway? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::: What's hilarious is how liberals delight so much in their own [[deceit]]. Go back to watching [[Comedy Central]], TBaker, if you even get cable television where you are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==Scansion==
Honestly, setting aside the content for a moment, if you want to write a parody song that's fine by me. But at least do it right. Do a scanning run-through of "Born in the USA," not syllables and the types of poetic feet, and conform your novel ideas to those. Then it'll at least be clever. Now it reads like someone who doesn't read, or doesn't understand, the point of poetry.-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: You protest too much also, DavidSt. Stop resisting the truth and it won't sting so much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:35, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::I'm not disputing the truth. I'm disputing the form of its statement. Hold on, I'll write something about scansion....-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:36, 3 February 2009 (EST)
:::Okay. So scansion works like this. Tennyson's "Ulysses" scans in iambic pentameter, which means five syllabic pairs of WEAK/STRONG. Observe:where ' = strong, and _ = weak, "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" = "_ ' _ ' _ ' _ ' _ '" So you need to find how Born in the USA scans, and pattern on that.-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:40, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Suggestion: to make a patternably scanned rhyme scheme, change the title to "Ain't Born in the USA." So the title and the critical phrase would scan " _ ' _ _ ' ' ' "-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== It's called humor... ==

Please everyone - you may disagree with the principle of the song (for me, "I can't even pronounce 'Pakistan'
And I also mispronounce the 'Taliban'" is the most incoherent, among other things) but to get angry over it is just childish. You could apply the same song to John McCain over his age or Sarah Palin over her gaffes (just to use two examples), and I'm sure the response wouldn't be nearly as large as this song over Barack Obama. Flawed? Yes. Something to get blood boiling? No way. If you want to make your own song about a public figure, I'm sure that would be fine too. If you don't like it, do something more constructive. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 18:40, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:Despite the fact that it's full of flaws, I find this essay funny. If we can't laugh at our political figures, what's the benefit of freedom of speech? I would like to point out though, the admins here are VERY quick to remove any humor targeted at a conservative figure, but hey, we can all have a good laugh every now and then. Humor has the benefit of subjective. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)

It may not be perfect from a musical or lyrical standpoint, but as parody, its ''brilliant''. I'd suggest Mr. Schlafly submit something to 'Weird' Al Yankovic, but he's probably never do a song that parodies Obama or any leftie. (I should add that I really have no idea what 'Weird' Al's politics are. He's done a few issue-oriented songs, but about things like music-downloading.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:02, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:This is absolute genius!! --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, I knew Weird Al, I worked with Weird Al, Weird Al was my friend. Mr. Sclafly, you're no Weird Al. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 23:22, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I thought it was pretty funny, myself. Can others add songs? Perhaps something to the tune of "The Locomotion":

The liberals are saying that they’ve got their chance now,

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

They swear Barack’ll save us, if we give him a chance now,

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

He’s putting up a whole big batch of nominees,

It seems he overlooked their liabilities,

So come on, come on, blow the nomination, Big “B”!

You've gotta dodge your taxes,

You know that you’ll attract Barack,

If it’s ethics that you lack!

Woah woah...

Hey, Geithner was embarassing, that caused some pain now,

(Come on, baby, blow the nomination!)

The scandals keep on coming like a runaway train now,

(Come on, baby, blow the nomination!)

So Killefer’s a tax cheat, but hey, who knew?

You put up Daschle—how ‘bout that? He did it, too!

So come on, come on, blow the nomination, Big “B!"

Oh yeah...

Blow the nomination...

Blow the nomination...

Yay, yay, yay, yeah...

Your cabinet is shameful, it’s a huge disgrace, son!

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

Name another criminal, disgrace the nation!

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

There's never been a job that’s so hard to do,

As finding honest people wearing Democrat blue,

So come on, come on, blow the nomination, Big “B!”

;)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Pronunciation ==

The President's pronunciation of Pakistan (PAH-kih-stahn) is closer to the native pronunciation than the common North American Anglophone pronunciation of (PACK-ih-stan). I see no need to enforce an incorrect pronunciation. Similar, but common, verbal mangling occurs in the place names of Hiroshima, Souix, and Thames. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==McCain==
Oh, I see, it's about John McCain, right? Because he was born in Panama. No, wait, he lost that election to a Hawaiian... [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 16:23, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2011-04-19T22:03:13Z

Kamiwashinda: /* Dilution of Conservative POV */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports "holy war", if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Dilution of Conservative POV ==

Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-04-19T21:53:33Z

Kamiwashinda:

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

== My plans for this article ==

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.

:I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)
I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

{{quotebox|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.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)
::::The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution. The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::: There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion. If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence. They don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Firstly, the reason there is no evolutionary explanation for religion is that evolutionary theory is a biological theory, it doesn't set out to explain the existence of religion at all. It sets out to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Secondly, you appear to equate evolutionary scientists with atheists. Many evolutionary scientists are Christians and they would dispute such a characterisation. Thirdly, people display a whole lot of foolish behaviours that animals do not. People smoke, gamble and watch daytime television. Animals do not. The reason animals do not do those things is that they have not developed cigarettes, slot machines or TV sets. Similarly, they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena. Accordingly, your point about the lack of animal reverence is a non-point. Can we remove the item now? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:26, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Cecil, your statement that "many evolutionary scientists are Christian" is bizarre and deluded if you ''really'' believe that, and deceitful if you don't and are just using to push your opinions. I suggest you read conservapedia's article and learn what a [[Christian]] is. (If you don't want to do this I give you a hint: it is someone who accepts the word of [[God]] and not the word of atheists pushing [[pseudoscience]] in pathetic attempts to lead people away from the [[Bible]].) Evolutionists ''do'' posit that [[Darwinism]] can explain all aspects of human behavior, yet as the article points out it cannot explain one of the most significant behaviors that separates us from animals: [[religion]]! [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 18:44, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Mike, your dispute is not with me. It is with the evolutionary biologists who both believe in evolutionary biology and the Christian God. Otherwise, I await a response to the more substantive points in my post. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:10, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Such people are ''not'' Christians. I hope [[Cafeteria Christianity|this]] is substantive enough for you. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 19:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::Well put, Mike. I'd add that [[Jesus]] mentioned the [[Flood]] in his teachings, and his [[Crucifixion]] was to redeem the sin of [[Adam]]. Evolutionists deny both the Flood and the existence of Adam.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I'd go one step further and suggest strict evolutionists deny that ''Jesus'' existed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Wonderful. Would anyone like to address any other aspect of my post? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 22:25, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::What specifically would like addressed? And your sarcastic tone doesn't help your cause. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::: There is also no plausible evolutionary explanation for the appearance of ever-higher forms of life, particularly man. To get around this, atheists (and their partners-in-crime, evolutionists) posit the notion that human beings are '''merely animals'''. This notion is enforced in Wikipedia's article names. And somebody tried to sneak it by us here with a talk page heading. This smacks of [[circular reasoning]], which scientists generally regard as a fallacy.

::::::: If the laws of thermodynamics apply here, then the [[molecular biology]] of living creatures should not be getting more complex as time goes on. "As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase." [http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm] How do evolution's advocates (especially the atheists) explain the increased complexity and organization which we see in the [[fossil record]], when the theory which all scientists accept predicts instead an increase of randomness and chaos? (See also, [[Entropy]]) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:05, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Interesting take Ed. The way I was taught is that man is an animal and still the same flesh and bone as an animal but has been blessed with the spirit of the lord. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:11, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I think we may have strayed somewhat from the original point. The item should be removed from the list because it is not in any way a counterexample to evolution. The reasons are as follows: 1. Evolution says nothing at all about the existence of religion in either man or animals. Evolutionary theory is a biological theory aimed at explaining the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that man is also the only species observed to play poker, bungee jump or run for political office are also, likewise, irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory. 2. As was pointed out above, the obvious reason that animals do not display religious behaviour is that "they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena". Furthermore, even if animals did posses religious reverence what would that look like exactly? I don't speak squirrel so I can't really say if they are saying prayers or just squeaking randomly. The whole thing is just too silly for words. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:22, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::I've heard that argument before: that animals might be as high as humans, but that we (silly, ignorant) humans simply don't understand animal language. But except for dolphins (and possibly bees), no species of [[animal]]s can even communicate mundane things like, "There's food over there." With [[training]], some species of can learn to accept commands from humans, and with years of effort some researchers have taught primates a rudimentary sign language.

::::::::You also misunderstand [[religion]] itself: it's not a superstition '''created''' by human beings. We seek God because He, being higher than us just as a shepherd is higher than sheep, seeks a relationship with us. Religion was created by God.

::::::::I submit that evolutionists are trapped in their suppositions, and will never gain a correct understanding of animal life (let alone human life) until they are prepared to identify and reexamine these suppositions. If evolution is to be anything but a pseudoscience, it must compare its theory's hypotheses with reality and jettison those which the evidence contradicts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::1. I did not make the argument that "animals might be as high as humans" (whatever that means). I was merely asking what it would look like if animals (squirrels in my example) were reverent. Would we even know? 2. I do not misunderstand religion. I am not proposing that religion is man made. I am pointing out the obvious counter argument to Aschlafly's position: Atheists would quite logically say that the reason that we do not see religion displayed in animals is because they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not invented building processes sufficient to build cathedrals, temples and mosques (nor, I suppose, have they yet invented the pipe organ in order that they might sing hymns on Sundays). 3. Your submission is fascinating but irrelevant to this discussion. Could we please focus on the issue at hand. In what way does the fact that man is the only creature to exhibit religion constitute a counterexample to evolution? Does anyone have a sensible answer? Or should I just remove the item? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:33, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|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.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in '''point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section''' there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.

::All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.

:Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:"I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|an openmindedness test]]. Please let us know what your test score is.

:::MalP, please do post your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
::::Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.

::::The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an '''even longer''' neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.

::::At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
::::The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a ''valve'' is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.

::::If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.

:::::Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.

::::::On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?'' Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

:::::::::Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

== Chipmunks on Devil's tower? ==

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

: By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the [[global flood]]) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::: I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
::::::However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9i30Mwjo4 here] is a video of a red-tailed hawk ([http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r6/devil.htm which is fairly common to the area]) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Turkish Angoras ==

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that ''all'' cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
:Presumably, it's the cause of humans meddling in evolution. Domestic breeds of cats and dogs are the result of humans using selective breeding over many, many generations to create an animal they found more pleasing. Even if that weren't the case, that's hardly a valid example, since evolution is not working towards a "best," merely passing on what doesn't not work. There's no intelligence to the design, if you will. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:20, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

== Logical Example 8 ==

There has actually been a great deal of research amongst the evolutionists regarding why 'bad' behavior exists. I know his name is taboo, but before Richard Dawkins became the poster child for the New Atheist movement, he was a reputable biologist. One of his greatest books was The Selfish Gene, which describes in great detail how 'nasty' behavior actually could be construed as an evolutionary advantage to the individual. Before some haughty evolution supporter tries to come in here with a lengthy, indignant protest to that specific counterexample, I'd suggest we remove it. There are plenty of other logical counterexamples. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 20:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)

:Example 8 entails highly self-destructive behavior. I don't think that's what Dawkins meant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)

::If indeed Example 8 refers to '''self-destructive''' behavior, then it does make sense as an example. However, it should be clearly stated that we're referring to behavior that is damaging to the person doing the action. Right now the example suggests that lying and murdering could not have evolutionary benefits; they could - such is the mindset of a Darwinist, but it's the truth. Both of them are mentioned by Dawkins in his book directly. I can give quotes if you'd like. Perhaps we should switch out liars, murderers, and psycopaths with examples like...oh, say, drug addicts, people who purposefully injure themselves, and suicidal people. These self-destructive tendencies are not accounted for by evolution.[[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 18:10, 4 December 2010 (EST)
:::Not just "could." Darwinists claim that murder isn't immoral because it's common for cuckoo chicks to push other birds' eggs out of nests, and have whole schemes for when lying is "useful." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:00, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a rational human being who'd say murder isn't immoral. You may be thinking of Social Darwinists, who are completely different from evolutionists in that social darwinism is only very loosely related to actual evolution. Societies are stronger when their members work together and don't kill each other - that's why we don't kill each other. It's more beneficial to pretend we like each other than to just stab each other, because working together means more security and more food. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:33, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

==Linguistics==
Evolution does not require that all languages have a common ancestor. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:33, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

: Sure it does, unless implausible and imaginary scenarios are resorted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
::The more I think about it, the more I realize that you're probably right: all languages likely descended from the same small group of languages. However, the fact that we've never found it proves nothing, since you can't exactly discover a dead language that had no written form. We have found cave paintings and the like. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 12:55, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

== Ants and other social insects ==

We have two entries for ants and other social insects. Should they be merged? [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:51, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Observation and Chickens==
It is literally impossible for someone to observe a species changing into another species without a microscope, and those aren't exactly widely available in the periods in which historical records were written. I suggest removing the bit about no one observing evolution in a historical record. I'd also like some explanation as to why the protein in chickens being required to produce a chicken egg disproves the existence of a proto-chicken when the proto-chicken could easily have evolved this protein and then passed it on. [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 17:53, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Barack Obama birthplace controversy

2011-04-19T21:50:02Z

Kamiwashinda: adding an overlooked fact

[[File:UndocumentedWorker.jpg|right|300px]]
[[Barack Obama]] claims to have been born at the ''Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children'' in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]],<ref name="maraniss">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082301620_pf.html |title=Though Obama Had to Leave to Find Himself, It Is Hawaii That Made His Rise Possible|author=Maraniss, David|publisher=''The Washington Post''|date=2008-08-22|accessdate=2008-10-27}}</ref> to Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo (Kenya and Tanzania)|Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, [[Kenya]], and Ann Dunham, a US citizen <ref>{{cite web|publisher=[[FactCheck]]|url=http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html|title=Born in the U.S.A.|date=August 21, 2008|accessmonthday=October 24 |accessyear=2008}}</ref> of mainly [[English]], [[Irish]] and smaller amounts of [[Germany|German]] descent.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269836,00.html |title=FOXNews.com - Report: Obama's Irish Roots Unearthed - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum |publisher=Foxnews.com |date=May 3, 2007 |accessdate=2008-11-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2008/10/30/barack-obamas-irish-heritage.html |title=Barack Obama's Irish Heritage - John A. Farrell (usnews.com) |publisher=Usnews.com |date= |accessdate=2008-11-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201551.html |title=Tiny Irish Village Is Latest Place to Claim Obama as Its Own - washingtonpost.com |publisher=Washingtonpost.com |date= |accessdate=2008-11-08}}</ref> However, requests, including lawsuits, asking he make his official birth certificate public have gone unanswered.

The [[Constitution of the United States|US Constitution]] [[United_States_Constitution:Article_II|Article II]], Section 1 is quoted as requiring the following for any persons to be eligible to be [[President of the United States]]:
{{Cquote|'''''No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.'''''}}
Thus, according the Constitution, for all persons who were born in another country, even if they are US citizens, they are prohibited from legitimately becoming President. However, Barack Obama was born to an American citizen, which makes him a citizen by birth regardless of his birthplace.

In total, there are at least 6 lawsuits in the effort to compel President-elect Obama to prove his birthplace and US Citizenship. The lawsuits include those by [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] former-Assistant Attorney General of [[Pennsylvania]] [[Philip Berg]][http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/058_Berg%20v%20Obama%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf], American Independent Party founder and former-[[Republican Party]] Presidential Primary candidate [[Alan Keyes]][http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/elections/presheadlines/34587804.html], and independent author [[Andy Martin]].[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928]

Philip Berg explains his lawsuit in this linked video [http://www.americanpatrol.com/MISCNEWS/2006-UP/ELECTIONS/2008/OBAMA/OctSurpriseVideo081012.html?v=gA6_k3NtXZs]

The Obama campaign released a "Certification of Live Birth" from the State of Hawaii claiming this is proof Obama was born in Hawaii.<ref>[http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate Obama Campaign; Fight The Smears Website]</ref> However, the ''Department of Hawaiian Home Lands'', an official government agency of the [[Hawaii|State of Hawaii]] rejects this document as proof of Hawaiian birth. They require instead a "Certificate of Live Birth" (1st word different). The department states:
{{Cquote|'''''In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.'''''<ref>[http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl Forms; Department of Hawaiian Home Lands]</ref>}}

Bloggers note that the "Certification of Live Birth" records Obama's father's race as "AFRICAN" versus "Negro" and that the document contains the word "LASER" in the lower left hand corner identifying the form type. They claim both words are incompatible with a document generated in 1961. They also note the certification number is blacked out.<ref>[http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/06/25/proven-barack-obama-presented-forged-certificate-of-live-birth/ Conservative Politics Today Website]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]
*[[Obama birth certificate controversy]]
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Outside Links ==

'''Sources favoring the Courts' compelling Obama to prove his birthplace and citizenship:'''

* [http://www.obamacrimes.com Philip Berg's Website]

'''Sources opposed to the Courts' compelling Obama to prove his birthplace and citizenship:'''

* [http://www.stopthesmears.com Anti-Barack Obama Campaign Website]

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-04-16T16:55:02Z

Kamiwashinda: /* Linguistics */

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-04-15T23:33:17Z

Kamiwashinda:

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2011-04-15T23:27:55Z

Kamiwashinda:

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.
2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no
3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.
4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?
5. I was 11 months old.
6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?
7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.
8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.
9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.
10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!
11. It is possible, yes.
12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.
13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.
14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

=="The Gays"==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-04-15T23:20:59Z

Kamiwashinda: /* Turkish Angoras */